Is anyone using "powercranks" and can they give us their thoughts

[paulbernstein]

I think you are expressing your ideas clearly...one point, however, for reply..you mention the powercrank musculature, which suggests in part less strength in the quads..if this were to occur, it would be of some concern come race day..with this in mind, I try to get one long ride in a week on my racing or equivalent bike, in part to make sure that I don't lose anything, ie quad strength, while I am trying to gain something, ie whole leg strength...I also do leg exercises in the qym once a week most of the year, and seek out hills when using powercranks, as that is most like weight lifting on the bike..later I will do more intervals for power building...I don't know if this will lead to optimal performance come race day, but that is my hypothesis in my experiment of one..time will tell....On another matter, has everyone seen UK pro John Ibbotson's web page?...he trained on powercranks for four weeks and kept a log..ibboworld.com.....another empirical experiment of one,

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by paulbernstein
I think you are expressing your ideas clearly...one point, however, for reply..you mention the powercrank musculature, which suggests in part less strength in the quads..if this were to occur, it would be of some concern come race day..with this in mind, I try to get one long ride in a week on my racing or equivalent bike, in part to make sure that I don't lose anything, ie quad strength, while I am trying to gain something, ie whole leg strength...I also do leg exercises in the qym once a week most of the year, and seek out hills when using powercranks, as that is most like weight lifting on the bike..later I will do more intervals for power building...I don't know if this will lead to optimal performance come race day, but that is my hypothesis in my experiment of one..time will tell....On another matter, has everyone seen UK pro John Ibbotson's web page?...he trained on powercranks for four weeks and kept a log..ibboworld.com.....another empirical experiment of one,

Paul,

can you please put your response in the same part that the quoted text goes in rather than in a reply. if you're not sure how to do this please send me a private message

cheers
ric

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by paulbernstein
I think you are expressing your ideas clearly...one point, however, for reply..you mention the powercrank musculature, which suggests in part less strength in the quads..if this were to occur, it would be of some concern come race day..with this in mind, I try to get one long ride in a week on my racing or equivalent bike, in part to make sure that I don't lose anything, ie quad strength, while I am trying to gain something, ie whole leg strength...I also do leg exercises in the qym once a week most of the year, and seek out hills when using powercranks, as that is most like weight lifting on the bike..later I will do more intervals for power building...I don't know if this will lead to optimal performance come race day, but that is my hypothesis in my experiment of one..time will tell....On another matter, has everyone seen UK pro John Ibbotson's web page?...he trained on powercranks for four weeks and kept a log..ibboworld.com.....another empirical experiment of one,

Unless there's something 'wrong' with you, or you're exceptionally small, then no matter what cycling you do, you will not increase your strength through cycling. Even pedalling at very low cadences (e.g. 30 revs/min) the forces are still very small, and are nowhere near the magnitude needed to increase strength.

Ric

 

[paulbernstein]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that we are using terms such as strength differently. There is nothing "wrong" with me other than I have been seriously training in sports for more than 40 years, and I am not exceptionally small..that said, I don't think it is radical to believe that if you use your muscles they can get stronger, and if you don't they will be weaker. Also I am talking about endurance strength and endurance power, which seems relevant to a repetitive activity like road cycling. Furthermore, I find that after gross preseason conditioning, strenght work (which precedes power work) is best done on the bike..hence slow cadance climbing in bigger gears. Basic Friel ideas. Nothing controvertial here. Also, I would respond privately to better learn how to use this forum if I knew how to do that. Assume you are communicating with someone from a previous century..

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Under the text you've written, there's several square brackets with abbreviations in. Click the one that reads [PM] on the message of the person you want to respond too, you can then send whoever a private message.

Ric

 

[peterwright]

I disagree with regards the on bike work not being signifcant enough to increase strength. On bike , low cadence hill work has been shown to increase climbing speed - I think it is safe to assume that this is partly doen to gains in strength. Whether off bike strength work has any real merit is certainly up for debate...

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by paulbernstein
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that we are using terms such as strength differently.

the definition of strength is: the maximum force or tension generated by a muscle (or muscle groups)

that said, I don't think it is radical to believe that if you use your muscles they can get stronger, and if you don't they will be weaker.

Not necessarily true. To get stronger you have to increase the muscle cross sectional area (i.e. hypertrophy of the muscle).

In endurance trained athletes, it's possible, and highly likely that strength *decreases* are you get aerobically fitter

Furthermore, I find that after gross preseason conditioning, strenght work (which precedes power work) is best done on the bike..hence slow cadance climbing in bigger gears. Basic Friel ideas. Nothing controvertial here.

Actually, it is (controversial). Strength training *cannot* be completed on a bike. Strength can only be trained at very low velocities, even for e.g. doing low cadence work uphill is too quick -- this is endurance training

lots of threads on this in the cycling training forum
Ric

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by peterwright
I disagree with regards the on bike work not being signifcant enough to increase strength. On bike , low cadence hill work has been shown to increase climbing speed - I think it is safe to assume that this is partly doen to gains in strength. Whether off bike strength work has any real merit is certainly up for debate...

I'm sure low cadence hill work increases climbing speed (so does changes in environmental conditions too). assuming that you mean increases in power, it most likely does, although there's no reason to believe that it would be any more of a change than riding at the same power at a higher cadence (this would probably be more beneficial).

Irrespective of this it's highly unlikely it'll increase your strength. assuming that you ride up a hill at 250 W at 50 revs/min on 170mm cranks, you need a force of ~280 N (~ 28 kg)...

Ric

 

[paulbernstein]

As I said, it appears that we are using our terms differently. Developing the ability to pick something very heavy up one time is not all that relevant to endurance cycling..my use of strength, and I can choose to define it as I wish, as this is an exercise in communication, is endurance strength. Also, I don't disagree that as we become aerobically fitter we may lose strength, which is why over the cycle or cycles of a year, we build base, strength wise and aerobically, then refine, compete, rest lose balance, start all over again etc etc until we are in the ground. So, each year we try to do it a bit smarter. Can we get "stronger" so that later in the season we are at a higher overall level in our competition. Different questions are explored at different times of the year, eg, are there ways of maintaining our strength at a higher level for longer periods of the season as we ultimately pursue our competitive goals. Hence the interest in powercranks for this years go round. Time will tell. If there was only one way to the goal, that would be very boring. Now I really have to shut this beast down, my computer, and get on the bike..

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by paulbernstein
As I said, it appears that we are using our terms differently. Developing the ability to pick something very heavy up one time is not all that relevant to endurance cycling..my use of strength, and I can choose to define it as I wish, as this is an exercise in communication, is endurance strength. Also, I don't disagree that as we become aerobically fitter we may lose strength, which is why over the cycle or cycles of a year, we build base, strength wise and aerobically, then refine, compete, rest lose balance, start all over again etc etc until we are in the ground. So, each year we try to do it a bit smarter. Can we get "stronger" so that later in the season we are at a higher overall level in our competition. Different questions are explored at different times of the year, eg, are there ways of maintaining our strength at a higher level for longer periods of the season as we ultimately pursue our competitive goals. Hence the interest in powercranks for this years go round. Time will tell. If there was only one way to the goal, that would be very boring. Now I really have to shut this beast down, my computer, and get on the bike..

I'm not entirely sure you can have an "exercise in communication" when you define a word that is already well defined and has a different meaning to that which you're using.

Ric

 

[peterwright]

A little bit picky here Ric - there are many words that can be defined differently when used in a different context...

I feel that your overly black and white approach to what is a relatively unknown quantity (the mechanics of pedalling and its effect on speed) does not help to promote a healthy debate on the topic.

There are lots of different views on this matter and scientific studies can be found to back just about anything if one looks hard enough.

In this case I believe that the jury is still out...

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by peterwright
A little bit picky here Ric - there are many words that can be defined differently when used in a different context...

I feel that your overly black and white approach to what is a relatively unknown quantity (the mechanics of pedalling and its effect on speed) does not help to promote a healthy debate on the topic.

There are lots of different views on this matter and scientific studies can be found to back just about anything if one looks hard enough.

In this case I believe that the jury is still out...

peter,

I haven't tried to give a definitive answer to the question of pedalling mechanics, i just summarised a piece of the literature.

On the other hand, i have tried to give a definitive answer as regards strength and cycling. the majority of the literature does suggest that strength training won't increase cycling performance, and furthermore is likely to be ergolytic (in terms of endurance cycling performance).

Ric

 

[peterwright]

I rest my case....

 

[ric_stern/RST]

??????

 

[andrewbradley]

Originally posted by paulbernstein
Also I am talking about endurance strength and endurance power, which seems relevant to a repetitive activity like road cycling. Furthermore, I find that after gross preseason conditioning, strenght work (which precedes power work) is best done on the bike..hence slow cadance climbing in bigger gears. Basic Friel ideas. Nothing controvertial here.

I suspect you may have also have read that leg strength is what makes a good climber.

Coaching is said to be an art, and some works have been pretty creative.
I still can't figure out the "speed, strength, endurance" style myself. Figurative perhaps.

 

[andrewbradley]

Originally posted by ricstern
There are some studies coming out now on Rotor Cranks, which do appear to alter the duty cycle. However, from memory, I'm pretty sure (but not positive) that the results are equivocal.

Ric

I was thinking more of theoretical physiological arguments rather than testing 'cos every new pedalling system seems to come with a peer reviewed study as back up.

There's also the variable crank-length machine whose raison d'etre is reduced reverse torque on the upstroke via a reduction in crank-length there. If this concept were actually implementable you would have a perpetual motion machine that would go down the road under the weight of it's pedals.

I sometimes wonder if the L-shaped cranks people couldn't have come up with something in the test lab.

I'm not saying any of the systems don't work (apart from the L-shapes) just that I doubt if tests can ever be designed well enough to bring out differences that I can only see as being small.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Originally posted by andrewbradley
I was thinking more of theoretical physiological arguments rather than testing 'cos every new pedalling system seems to come with a peer reviewed study as back up.

I'm not sure what you mean by "every new pedalling system" (e.g. style such as 'ankling', or, equipment such as Power Crank). Either way, there's hardly a peer reviewed study for each system. Even if there was you need more than one study (preferably quite a few) before you can make any assumptions on the benefits or not of a piece of equipment (etc), else results will be "interpreted with caution", especially if it goes 'against' the underlying basic principles.

Ric

 

[andrewbradley]

Originally posted by ricstern
I'm not sure what you mean by "every new pedalling system" (e.g. style such as 'ankling', or, equipment such as Power Crank). Either way, there's hardly a peer reviewed study for each system.

I was thinking of the mechanical devices. AFAIK there are two totally "new" pedalling systems around - Rotors and the (lower profile) variable crank-length system I described, the (favorable) peer reviewed study for which is:
Paola Zamparo Alberto E. Minetti and Pietro E. di Prampero: Mechanical efficiency of cycling with a new developed pedal–crank. Journal of Biomechanics. Volume 35 Issue 10 (October 2002) Pages 1387-1398.

Now to me this system seems to have been founded on dodgey physics (which doesn't mean it isn't beneficial physiologically, but it's hard to see how).

Rotors (and PCs) on the other hand raise clear physiological issues.

Even if there was you need more than one study (preferably quite a few) before you can make any assumptions on the benefits or not of a piece of equipment (etc), else results will be "interpreted with caution", especially if it goes 'against' the underlying basic principles.

So do PC's and Rotors go against "underlying basic principles" of exercise physiology?

 

[bicisurf]

To contribute to the discussion, I have been using PowerCranks for three+ months and have had long discussions and observations with fellow cyclists and triathletes who have been using them regularly for 2+ years. My own background was as a national-class amateur road racer in the US and Europe, ending 15 years ago. I got back into the sport over the past year or so and ended up using PowerCranks on the advice of fellow riders.

My thoughts are:

- Spinning/Cadence - Without a doubt, my cadence is slower when on the PC's then not, averaging about 80-85 rpms (and that's working!) v. 90-100 on regular cranks. However, my average cadence on regular cranks has increased since I started using PC's and my fast pedal intervals, done on regular cranks, are now done at a much higher cadence (ave. 130rpm for a 5 min interval at 280watts or so) and more comfortably. Go figure. My friends who use them generally are time trialists or tri-guys, and I would say their cadence both with PC's and without is lower than my own and they can't tell if the PC's have had any impact on cadence. You really have to work/pay attention to have a high cadence with PCs.

- Performance: Training makes you stronger (generally), so it is always hard to tell whether your improvement is due to continued bike time or a new gadget being used during your additional bike time. With that said, my power/HR results for sub-LT efforts has improved using the PC's. My tri-friends use them religiously and claim that they have noticed improvements in their TT ability (the 2mph 'estimate' is often cited), in addition to substantial improvements in their running splits (with fewer running miles to boot). I am a terrible runner but found that I could run much easier and faster for the same effort during recovery jogs (3 miles) after using the PC's.

Pedal Style: My experience is that there are two types of PC users: Those who find them unbelievably hard, especially at the start (me included) and those who are pretty okay with them. My unscientific conclusion, based on, among other things, my intimate knowledge with my own pedal mechanics, is that people pedal differently and PCs will impact users differently. I have noticed fairly big improvements because the PCs have really tested my concentration and pedal focus (even for someone with my experience) and taxed muscles that I clearly was not using during my pedal stroke. For me, the impact was most dramatic on my shins, calfs, hamstrings, hip flexors and quads in that order. Others cite the hip flexor stress as the limiting muscle group - in fact, most of my friends do. Not true for me. So, there you have it again.

Injury: PCs excacerbate any pedaling issues you have, and I have suffered an injury of my own (abductor) that I attribute in part to the PCs and fellow athletes have cited knee, ankle and hip issues that have arisen. Be careful. Take your time. The idea of just switching over all at once as advocated by Frank Day on his site seems very poorly advised. Find out how they are affecting you and, most importantly, give your body time to respond before you convince yourself they are not hurting you or that they have not created new muscle stresses that take some time to reveal and reverberate through your body.

Safety: Be careful. I have seen several accidents due to the lack of bike control created by independent pedals, especially when folks try to descend/corner or accelerate by standing on them. Again, despite the claims of Mr. Day, my experience and observation says to be very careful and don't race on them unless you're a pro. With insurance.

I hope this helps.

 

[acoggan]

Originally posted by peterwright
A little bit picky here Ric - there are many words that can be defined differently when used in a different context...

But the context here is the physiology of sport and exercise, in which case the definition of strength that Ric provided is the only viable one. The same could be said for the word "efficiency" - it might mean different things in other contexts, but when speaking of exercise/metabolic function, it means energy out/energy in x 100% - and that's the only meaning consistent with precise communication.

If you want to see the misunderstandings created when non-scientists attempts to redefine terms that already have widely accepted scientific definitions, look no further than Joe Friel's attempt to reinvent the meaning of "critical power".