Pc+ct=ups

Triathlon Forum
1

Power Cranks plus Computrainer makes it possible to understand (your) pedal stroke.

Most of the posts I have seen re PCs report improved performance (and a fair amount of replies from skeptics). I just bought a second pair for my other bike because, since I put PCs on my number one bike on December 29th my other bike doesn’t get used. I did this because I have experienced a quantum leap in performance over the past 3 months AND because, for the first time, I believe I am beginning to understand the elements of an efficient pedal stroke. This understanding came about by watching my CT spin scan before and after PCs.

I am a relative neophyte to biking. I have been doing tris for 2.5 years and biking is completely new to me. Since I knew my pedal stroke was extremely weak, I read a whole lot about pedal stroke. I got lots of conflicting information and really didn’t sort it out until I found the formula, UPS=PC+CT

Which is my dominant leg?
bPC: My right leg persistently dominated my left, l:r = 52:48. I could make this go away if I really concentrated on it; otherwise, it was there. I assumed this was because I am naturally right legged, based on the old days of playing soccer.

aPC: My left leg persistently dominated my right leg, l:r = 48:52 (when I began). I learned that my right leg is weak (slow) at lifting up and over. Also, I found adjusting my right cleat forward helped. With fixed cranks, my presumed weak leg was actually helping lift my presumed strong leg. I would not have figured this out without disconnecting my left from my right.

The mystery of spin scan numbers?
bPC: Ever since I got the CT 7 months ago, I have been trying to figure out what an optimal range of spin scan numbers is. The CT book says the pros pedal in the 70s. Well, I started in the low 50s and learned how to pedal in the 80s, occasionally touching the 90s, at a cadence normally around 95-105. This requires a downward pointed toe at the top and very little ankling. I was very close to pedaling circles.

aPC (and advice from John Cobb): I ankle. Since I have swimmers flexibility, I ankle big time. My cadence is usually between 60-70 but I can bring this up to 80 if I want, but higher cadence for me is slower. My spin scan numbers are typically high 50s to 70. These numbers are a function of cadence and resistance. At low resistance, it is difficult to maintain a good looking peanut shape on the polar plot. At high resistance and lower cadence the polar plot looks really good, spin scan ~65. My sweet spot, currently, seems to ~65. I no longer care what the pro’s numbers are.

Attack angle?
bPC: Using the polar plot, my attack angle was typically around 105 deg. And the phase difference was such that both legs had very close to the same attack angle.

aPC: Initially my attack angle was all over the place and, of course, one leg good easy be 10-30 degrees out of phase with the other leg. Without a CT you can feel this pretty easily. But when the legs are only a few degrees out of phase, it is not so easy, at least not for me. Learning to ankle, learning to smoothly lift each leg, adjusting my cleats a bit - what a difference. Now I don’t fixate on the polar plot and when I look at it there are my legs humming along as though they are connected by fixed cranks. What a nice feeling.

Conservation of angular momentum?
bPC: With respect to pedalling, I never thought about it and never read about it.

aPC: Now I feel it. What the books describe as scrapping mud off your shoes is a crude way of describing what you need to do to help conserve angular momentum, developed primarily during the down stroke, as you come into the up stroke. This feeling can be obtained to some extent by single leg peddling on fixed cranks. But your non-peddling leg is never in the right position and your hips can’t possibly participate correctly. Now I feel my calfs, hip flexors and back muscles all working together to conserve angular momentum. This has got to be a good thing, I think.

Performance changes?
I have made numerous changes over the past 8 months and all of them have helped. But only one change correlates directly with my sudden improvement. Now, I know that correlation does NOT prove causation. But good science starts by paying attention to correlations.
bPC: Long rides (3 hour max) at ~14 mph. Short (1 hour or less) rides at 16-18 mph.
aPC: Long rides (4 hour max) at 17+ mph. Short (1.5 hours or less) rides at 17-22 mph.

Evaluation to date
I suspect that people new to biking will experience a more sudden impact from PC training than those who have biked a long time. BUT, I think almost everyone will understand there own pedal stroke better and improve upon it by training with PCs. How much they improve remains to be seen.
I follow the debates on Slowtwitch about the scientific basis as to why PCs will make you faster or not. These are interesting, amusing, and sometimes educational. I for one am fairly certain that our scientific knowledge regarding biomechanics, muscle and cardiovascular physiology, neurobiology, and biochemistry is insufficient to analyze this problem. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be trying but it does mean that in the mean time what you have to go one is anecdotal data. That’s what you got here.
Bill

2

very nice summation of your experience.

I have always said that the CT was still a valuable tool beyond PC’s and you affirm it. Even though the PC’s do the heavy lifting and make the big picture changes, the CT allows you to understand more and do more beyond the PC’s. Those who only have the CT and who have never experienced PC’s probably do not really understand what the spinscan is telling them (or not telling them).

As you continue to work I suspect your spinscan numbers will continue to “improve”, that is get larger. When you are looking at the screen, don’t think about making the number larger, becasue that is easiest done by limiting your down and upstroke power, but think about increasing the force across the top and bottom. That is the most powerful way to improve your spinscan number. It is not about the number but about the power but working on the weak part of your stroke will increase the power and the weakest part for most people is first, the upstroke for non-PC’ers then the top and the bottom (the CT cannot distinquish).

Your analysis of ankling is interesting. Before I didn’t think it would be particularly important to do so but now I am beginning to wonder. The reason being, if a lot of the vertical movement of the pedal is absorbed in the ankle joint this means the HF’s must move less far and more importantly, the heavy thigh must be accelerated less, making the stroke more efficient.

Mike P. (or others), something else to look at.

Frank

3

Oldaveguy, this ankling is what I started doing immediately upon using PCs. It was not a conscious decision, it was just what my body did trying to find some way to get the pedal over the top with rapidly fatiguing hip flexors. My anterior tibialis muscles became as tired as my hip flexors for a while! And sore!

I had almost exactly the same spin-scan results as you did…it looked as if my right leg was stronger, but, my left leg was actually driving down harder in order to lift that lazy right leg…and my right leg was fighting this left leg power in order to keep the spin artificially smoother…what a waste of power! PCs on the CT show the REAL story about your pedal stroke…make that pedal strokeS…independent evaluation is only possible with a tool like the PCs.

BTW, after the couple of really long rides (over 2 hours) on PCs, I find my lower abdominal muscles are a little sore. Do you get that, too?

I still wonder if we should be disseminating this information to our competitors…Oh, well, at least you and I have a 3 month head-start on lots of people!

4

yaqui, Today I did a 3:40 ride on the CT at 17.3 mph, first hour at that speed, ditto second, and ditto third, never dropped the pace. If you had asked 6 months ago if I thought this was possible, I would have told you no way.
Nope, my abs don’t bother me but anterior tibialis sure does. Now that my hip flexors are coming along the tibialis may be my weak link.

I must admit there is a part of me that would just like to keep these babies a secret because they truly do bring about a revelation. But Slowtwitch posters have been good to me. Lots of good advice. I like having the chance to return the favor. Also, if I understand correctly, Frank Day is running a one product company. He deserves our support. Without his product, I’m still slogging it out at 15 mph and trying to figure out what to do about it.
How come you changed your handle? ktalon is a lot shorter.
Bill

5

I can’t imagine 3:40 on a computrainer with PC’s. Phooey with the sore anterior tibialis muscles, how about the butt?

6

Bill, 3:40 on a CT…you’re crazy! That’s something I don’t think I could do…congratulations! You’re making good improvement, too! I rode 3:45 on the road today on PCs and I hit the wall. The last 20 miles were tortuous. It was because I had nutritional issues, it sure wasn’t fun. I ended up sliding way back on my seat (effectively raising my seat height) and standing up sometimes in order to rest my hip flexors some…that really helped…but the gut bomb I was fighting was what really killed me.

When I made it home and was recounting my adventure to my wife (bless her soul for being so patient!), I made the comment that it was my longest ride on PCs so far. “You mean you rode 70 miles on PCs?” she asked. That’s when it hit me…3 months ago I wouldn’t have thought I could ride 10 miles on PCs by now. ttn rode 100 his first week out! He says it wasn’t smart, but, he survived it…I couldn’t have done it!

I changed my name simply because I’ll race the Yaqui, and people recognize me by the bike, because there aren’t many Yaquis around here (mine is the only one I’ve seen). If people know who I am when they see me at races…hopefully it will get them talking to me about something we may have written about on Slowtwitch. I have the PCs on my Talon which I’m going to do 95% of all my riding upon…the PCs are enough of a conversation piece on their own to start up conversations.

Man, I hope the weather breaks where you are so you can get off that CT and out on the road! Keep on lifting that rising foot! (Can you imagine one day being able to actually pull up some on every pedal stroke!??!!)

8

not a PCer wrote: Interesting that people using PCs are finally recognizing the limitation of the CT Spinscan function.

Yep, I think PCs are great at showing what is actually happening during a pedal stroke, as evidenced by the spinscan observations picked up by PCs. No matter how smooth one thinks their pedal stroke is, it probably has significant flaws in it. One leg stronger, one leg not pulling across at the bottom, firing too soon or too late at the top, not picking up your rising leg, etc. In fact, I think PCs can be used as a diagnostic tool to determine many pedal stroke problems. It doesn’t take long (just a few minutes) on a pair before the worst pedal stroke habits are exposed for what they are…inefficiencies and/or imbalances.

9

“see Coyle’s study of elite US cyclists”
where can I find this study?
thanks,
Tripoet

11

So, were the differences in power in the downstroke due to:

  1. Better training;

  2. Longer femur (Group 1 was taller);

  3. Compositional differences at the mitochondrial level;

  4. Age differentials;

  5. Long term diets;

  6. Percentage of VO2 at LT (this seems irrelevant to pedaling technique, but I’m not certain);

  7. Something not idenitified in the study;

  8. Or, pedaling differences?

And, this little quibble:

“Therefore, the exact factors that allowed the subjects of group 1 to generate more power and to produce higher peak torques during the cycling downstroke are unclear.”

Also, I would like to see all of the primary data sets on each participant.

Given the small number of subjects in each group, the small differences noted, and the inability of the researchers to isolate and quantify all the variables, I would say this study has only slight value in any discussion relating to the efficacy of Power Cranks. In particular, I would suspect, but am only hypothesizing, that those with longer femurs would TEND to generate more power on the downstroke. Also, one might just as easily contend that this data is some evidence that the smaller guys are more efficient pedalers and the bigger guys might improve if their technique improved. None of these cyclists were described as advocates of ankling or Power Cranks (That would have been impossible given the age of the study.) From my limited 40 years of cycling experience, most top bikers give only lip service to ankling. Few actually do it from my observation. This ONLY suggests the state of training in my mind. I am unwilling to reach the conclusion that these cyclists have amply demonstrated through years of racing at the highest level that they have the optimal pedal stroke. After all, we wouldn’t want any data sets to rule out the importance of exercise physiologists, would we? :slight_smile: Or, mechanical improvements, a la Power Cranks.

Back in the 1920’s many champion swimmers swam with their heads UP, i.e., out of the water. Times dropped when heads dropped. Until I see a definitive study otherwise, I will continue to follow my intuition, which is that in endurance cycling recruitment of more muscle SHOULD prove valuable. I am not saying I KNOW that to be true.

-Robert

12

Read the whole article. I did. He took a group of cyclists and divided them in half by their actual 40 k time trial times, with the faster group as group 1, the slower group as group 2 based.

He found many interesting things. Group 1 did, indeed push down vertically on the pedals harder than Group 2. Group 1 also pulled up less than Group 2. But, he stated that “When the complex movement of cycling is considered in its biomechanical entirety…,it is not surprising that a measure of effectiveness based solely on the orientation of the applied force fails to yield a meaningful measure of the true “effectiveness” of the movement…This finding makes it unclear whether feedback devices that allow a cyclist to improve pedaling effectiveness will lead to improved performance.” (underlining was my enhancement, bold type below is my enhancement)

This doesn’t say pulling up is worthless, it says that the Group 1 riders, who had FOUR MORE YEARS of endurance cycling experience AND were power trained, AND had more type 1 fibers (a genetic component!) AND higher capillary density (from the FOUR additional years of training), that these Group 1 riders pushed down harder than Group 2! Well, of course they did. They are genetically able to do so, and are trained to do so.

Furthermore, he states, “…the present study found less negative torque during the upstroke than the previous studies. In some instances this reduction in negative torque was produced by pulling up on the pedal…torque production patterns…were similar with increasing work rates, with the major difference at higher power outputs being increased peak torque during the downstroke and, to a much lesser extent, reduced negative torque during the upstroke.”

These quotes recognize that pulling up (reducing negative torque during the upstroke) contributes to increased power. Just because the riders with superior powerful Type 1 fibers happened to be also trained better (from FOUR more years of endurance training, as well as being power trained, which Group 2 did not have) tended to push down more and pull up less than Group 2, Coyle did not discount the fact that pulling up added power to either Group’s stroke, in fact, he says the Group 2 cyclists increased their power some by pulling up more.

In fact, Coyle states “Since pedaling effectiveness was lower in Group 1, it appears that group 1 possessed the ability to recruit a relatively larger quantity of muscle with each revolution.” Well, well, well! Coyle stated right there that Group 1’s pedaling wasn’t as effective as Group 2, as far as comparing an individual’s pedal stroke curve to another’s. Even though Group 1 was faster (after all, they are the group with the powerful type 1 muscle fibers, AND they have been training for power, and FOUR more years of endurance training), their pedaling effectiveness wasn’t as good as Group 2.

Coyle also stated, “…it should be recognized that biomechanical factors which alter the distribution of work also have potential to reduce fatiguability and improve performance.” Oh, does Coyle mean that to distribute the workload by using HIP FLEXORS would be appropriate to improve performance? This statement doesn’t discount this as a possiblity, in fact, it invites the possibility.

Final paragraph from Coyle: “The higher output was produced primarily by generating higher peak vertical forces and torque during the cycling downstroke and not by increasing the effectiveness of force application to the pedal. Factors possibly contributing to this ability may be the higher percentage of Type 1 fibers…and a 23% higher muscle capillary density in group 1…It appears that “elite-national class” cyclists have the ability go generate higher “downstroke power”, possibly as a result of adaptations stimulated by their greater number of years of endurance training.”

NOWHERE in the entire article did he say anything to make one believe that pulling up was a bad strategy to increase pedaling effectiveness, even though it was found that the faster group didn’t pull up as much. The faster group would have been even faster if they had better effectiveness in their pedal stroke, because Coyle said the slower group increased their power by pulling up, which only partially (and incompletely) made up for their lack of ability to push down as hard as the better trained, and perhaps even genetically superior, Group 1.

Find a different study to cite to try and prove pulling up isn’t more effective, this one argues against your point.

16

Nice post.

Something else. PUBLISHED studies are notoriously skewed. It is a well-known fact that when an effect is not found in a study it is likely to be stuck in a drawer somewhere. For instance, once you do a meta analysis of the studies that found a high correlation of math ability to gender, AND factor in the studies that found NO difference, or a very small difference (but were unpublished) you end up with the correct result, i.e., another cliche demolished.

I am not an un-alloyed advocate of Power Cranks, for the record. However, I think those who poo-poo them based upon such scant evidence as the Coyle study must be over invested in another stock. :slight_smile:

Given Mr. Day’s return policy, anyone who doesn’t try them shouldn’t be avoiding them because of Coyle’s study, that’s for certain. Furthermore, Frank seems to be very open minded about his product and ways to improve its usage. I find him a valuable contributer here. Ditto for notapcer, who I suspect is Andy Coggan in very poor disguise.

-Robert

17

Find a different study to cite to try and prove pulling up isn’t more effective, this one argues against your point.

You’re wrong.

My claim was that some individuals (such as those that formed group 2 in this study) already do generate a positive net torque on the crank during the upstroke, despite having never heard of PCs. Despite this, there is no evidence that this strategy is A) more efficient, or B) results in better performance. Since group 2 A) wasn’t more efficient (if anything, the O2 cost of producing a given power was higher in this group), and B) didn’t perform as well as group 1, this study provides support for my contention.

Group 2 was, BY DEFINITION, the less trained and slower group, and they had fewer Type 1 fibers…you can say they were genetically inferior, even. Dr. Coyle did say that Group 2’s attempt to get more power from applying less negative torque WAS effective at generating more power. True, it wasn’t as much power as group 1, but, that’s not a surprise, given Group 1 had four years more training and the genetic superiority of more type 1 fibers.

THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION OF O2 COST OF PULLING UP!!! You are making that up!

Group 1 had higher maxVO2 and Lactate Threshold levels, again, contributing to their higher power output abilities. Again, Group 2 was a group that didn’t have the training that those in Group 1 had.

I used to try and give you the benefit of the doubt. Now, I think you just don’t have a background in examining research articles, or, are so enamored with your point of view that you can’t take your own bias out of the way when you read this article. It DOES NOT support your position. Find a better article…there may be one, there may be a thousand…but this one DOES NOT support your position.

It plainly states that the Group 1 cyclists weren’t as effective in their pedal stroke (quote: "…since pedaling effectiveness was lower in group 1, it appears that group 1 possesed the ability to recruit a relatively larger quantity of muscle with each revolution.) Pushing down harder was why they went faster! SO?! There is no doubt that pushing down hard is the source of the vast majority of power in a pedal stroke. BUT, THERE IS ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT, or higher effectiveness as Dr. Coyle refers to it. PCs just may be one way to acheive this higher effectiveness, the article doesn’t say how to achieve this pedaling effectiveness, only that there is room for it, as evidenced by the FACT that the inferiorly trained Group 2 cyclists that weren’t blessed with a great preponderance of Type 1 fibers were already attempting to do to make up for their deficiencies in ability to push down harder!

BTW, no way could this be Dr. Coggan in disguise, he wouldn’t make such remarks. Dr. Coggan might not agree with PCs, but, his arguements aren’t based on articles that don’t support his position.

18

Uh, I believe Andy cited this very same study in an earlier post (before he quit showing up as himself) and for the same general principle. :slight_smile:

-Robert

19

If this is true, I think he should re-read the article. I have it copied right in front of me.

The last sentence of the article DOES state that Group 1 “…cyclists have the ability to generate higher ‘downstroke power’, possibly as a result of adaptations stimulated by their greater number of years of endurance training.” And just prior to this, it DOES state that they generate 11% more power than the Group 2 cyclists, and not by generating an increased effectiveness of force application (i.e., they didn’t pull up as much as Group 2).

THE ARTICLE DOES NOT state that increasing this pedal force effectiveness by the Group 1 cyclists would be a waste of effort, or oxygen consumption, or any other such negative qualities of power generation. In fact, he says the Group 2 cyclists DID have better pedal force application, which resulted in more power in that Group 2 than if they had not had the better pulling up power.

NEXT ARTICLE, PLEASE! Come on, read the whole thing! This article was one that examined what the faster group did compared to the lessor trained group. It is not an article claiming the “BEST WAY TO PEDAL IS XXXXX”.

20

Y/C aka Talon: You might want to inform the web site that has it posted. :), They apparently think it stands for the proposition that “ankling” or its genera are a waste of time.

Or, maybe notapcer should do that…

-Robert

21

I am not going to comment on the published “science” other to say the gap between the actual scientific knowledge and what factors contribute to an efficient peddle stroke is simply too large for meaningful conclusions to be drawn. If you look, I am pretty sure you can find data to support what ever position you would like to take.

That said, from my own experience so far, I am not at all convinced that the most efficient stroke is one where you apply significant torque on the up, bottom, or top of the stroke. My working hypothesis is that what is most efficient for ME is to conserve angular momentum at the bottom so as to use it to help me lift my leg up and over. The goal being to start my downward attack asap and hold it strong until 5 oclock. Sweeping smoothly through the bottom and lifting up and over costs a lot of energy. It engages lots of muscles I wasn’t using correctly before. But I am guessing there are two big dividends in just maintaining angular moment on up part of the stroke. One is that it gives my quads a lighter load on the down stroke and the other is an over increased efficiency. By the later I mean that all of my movements, high and low force, are now more tangential to the pedal circle.

One way I notice this is by going to a nice easy 55 rpm in 53/17. The spin scan polar plot goes to two circles kissing in the middle. Both are circles and both are the same size. And yes Frank would tell me to extert some torque at the top and bottom, thereby removing these sharp cusps in the middle. And maybe that is correct but I am not sure it is very important. When the polar plot drops to zero, it does not mean I have lost any angular velocity; it means I am not applying torque. If my goal is to maintain angular momentum, I just need to add a enough torque to lift the peddle and my leg. If I do this with a force tangential to the crank arm, I don’t need to do much work to bring my foot back in to place for my quads to take on the lions share of the work load. It is true that when I am in 53/14 at 70 rmp my spin scan numbers are higher and there are no cusps and the polar plot is a good looking peanut.

BTW. I think Not-a-PCer could be right on a number of counts. One, that trying to accelerate on the up stroke is inherently ineffecient and two, that plently of good bikers have learned this w/o the help of PCs. What I am sure of is that w/o PCs the time it would have taken me to learn a more efficient peddle stroke would have been measured in many years instead of a few months. What I suspect is that even the best of cyclists that have pretty well got things worked out, will in fact get better if they train with PCs. I really can’t see what anyone has to loose, if they can afford the PCs and if they can afford the temporary set back in speed and endurance.
Bill

22

Bill wrote: BTW. I think Not-a-PCer could be right on a number of counts. One, that trying to accelerate on the up stroke is inherently ineffecient and two, that plently of good bikers have learned this w/o the help of PCs. What I am sure of is that w/o PCs the time it would have taken me to learn a more efficient peddle stroke would have been measured in many years instead of a few months. What I suspect is that even the best of cyclists that have pretty well got things worked out, will in fact get better if they train with PCs.

I agree 100% with that statement. not a PCer IS correct on a number of counts. I totally agree with him on many counts. It’s just that the summary of the paper IS NOT that pulling up is a waste of effort. In fact, Dr. Coyle states the opposite, that the less powerful group added power to their strokes by having less negative torque, i.e., they pulled up at least some. The more powerful group…the group that had FOUR more years of endurance training PLUS more power training, didn’t pull up as much, if at all…that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t be better if they did pull up, and he aluded to that as a possibility.

There may be studies that do address pulling up as being a waste of energy, it’s just that THIS study does not do that. It evens supports pulling up as an interesting side-note that requires further study.

I don’t claim to know the answers…I’m just reading the study that was cited. And, I’m trying to find the reasons for so many people having better riding and much better running performances after having actually tried the things.

23

Amazing, I am no longer alone in pointing out the problems with some of these arguments against the PC’s.

There is NO data to prove or disprove any of the claims of myself or Mr. Not. At least I admit this, admitting that my claims are based upon a small biased study that never got published and on the anecdotal reports of almost every customer (who uses them “right”). Unfortunately for Mr. Not, his claims are seemingly based on a single study, that when read carefully doesn’t say what he says it says.

Don’t hold your breath waiting for those studies to show up that show pulling up is a waste of time and/or energy. the Coyle study put forward by Mr. Not is the only study I have ever seen that actually showed that any riders have ever “mastered” that skill, although their forces were so small and it would be hard to call it a mastery and that study did not look at energy expenditure or efficiency.

Some day in the future there will be some studies lookiing at this because now it is actually possible for riders to learn how to “master” this skill (at least, I am sure, so believe every user of the PC’s although I am sure Mr. Not wonders why anyone would even try). The anectdotal reports of many suggest this is a very useful skill to master but the true value must await scientific investigation.

Perhaps investigation will reveal that the real value of the PC’s comes, not from pulling up on the backstroke, but because of the increased pressure on the butt, the rider actually learns to push down harder, trying to unweight the butt, as Mr. Not suggests. We will have to wait and see but I wouldn’t put a lot of money on the later theory if I were a betting man.

Frank

24

ALMOST everyone is biased in their opinion, even if they try not to be. Some people are better at remaining relatively unbiased, they make good scientists. Others are better at coming up with ideas that have never been put to the test…they make good inventors, and they tend to be biased because of their invention being a product of their imagination.

To have a name of “not a PCer” is an example of a person with a strong bias against PCs. Dr. Day has a strong bias for the thing “not a PCer” is biased against. Neither is right or wrong because of their biasness (is that a word?), but one is more right and the other is more wrong. Which will be right? Anecdotal evidence points to Dr. Day being right, but, it hasn’t been proven by the rigid scientific method. NOR has it been disproven, especially by the article we’ve been picking apart; although this very article says that increasing pedaling effectiveness (i.e., pulling up at least some) was a valid technique the slower group was found to do to provide more power to the chain.

I never had much of a feeling about it one way or the other, until I took the chance to see how I progressed for the 60 day free trial period. My improvements are significant, and are continuing, and I will continue to try and understand why this is happening…and remain as open minded as I can…but, I am inevitably developing a biased opinion that PCs really are working, both for the bike and the run. How could I think otherwise after my individual improvement?

By the way, I wrote to Dr. Coyle today about the idea concerning maximum cardiac output vs. local neuromuscular function being THE limiting factor of a muscular unit’s ability to provide power over a period of time. If he answers, I’ll tell you what he says. This would clear up a lot of questions.

26

When someone capitalizes, it is a sign that they are trying to get the other person the pay attention and actually read that part. I did that because, apparently, you don’t pay attention very well to the garbage I wrote about the article.

Now, give me means to look up the other articles that you are referring to, so I can review them for myself. I’d be very interested to do so, since your Dr. Coyle article did not support your position, and actually aluded to the possibility that more effective pedaling techniques may be a benefit.