Mr. Not wrote: "Offhand, I can think of 4 ways of testing the hypothesis that pulling up on the pedals is more efficient:
-
compare subjects who pull up against those who don’t.
-
eliminate the ability to pull up by testing individuals w/o their feet attached to the pedals.
-
encourage people to exaggerate the tendency to push the contralateral leg up using a mechanical device (Rotor cranks).
-
train subjects to pull up more (using one-legged drills, PCs, whatever it takes) and see what happens to their efficiency as a result.
Studies 1 and 2 have been done, and have shown no benefit to pulling. Study 3 has also been done, and found that exaggerating the tendency to push the other leg up actually resulted in increased efficiency. Study 4 has not been done, but given the results of study designs 1-3, the odds are low that any benefit would be found - and even if one was, you’d need appropriate controls to be certain that any such improvement was due to pulling up and not due to other factors. A good way of doing this would be eliminate the ability to pull up by dettaching the feet from the pedals - a study that has already been done."
I agree completely with your contention of the various ways of looking at this. I disagree with your contention that any of these has already been done.
-
You apparently believe the Coyle study compares those who pull up to those that don’t. I disagree. While it appears that some in group two did pull up some, not all of them did and we don’t know how well these subjects could pull up (how long could they sustain single leg pedaling?). I know of no other study that shows this ability has ever been well learned by a large number of individuals using any particular technique (except for PC’s of course) although I admit it appears some have developed the ability but it is unrelated to current cycling ability, e.g, pro Robbie Ventura’s first ride lasting 5 minutes while amateur ttn being able to go 100 miles on day 3 and other amateurs and pros reporting first rides over an hour (such reports are rare though, even amongst the pros).
-
You say this has been done, do you have a reference? Did it show being attached was advantageous? How do you interpret this if it does if view of your current view?
-
I believe Rotorcranks work because they keep the contraction speed of the power muscles slower (the equivalent of pushing bigger gears and/or riding lower cadence) which makes them more efficient. I think the only tests that have been done on rotorcranks have been done to show there is an advantage, not to determine why. If you know of one how about a reference?
-
Study yet to be done (although one was done at U Kansas that did show some efficiency/lactate/power improvement riding the PC’s 3 times a week for 6 weeks) but this study was never accepted for publication.
Until such studies are actually done, please stop trying to use studies that do not look at these factors to prove your point as no one takes your arguments seriously anymore. I welcome debate and scientific inquiry on my product. Based upon the multitude of anecdotal reports we have seen it would appear a study will confirm the effectiveness of the product to improve performance. Then the debate should, more appropriately, shift to the degree of improvement possible and how to best use them to achieve maximum improvement.
Frank