pealling push up push down

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

Read the Luttrell study (which I provided a link to the abstract in an earlier post) and let us know your thoughts.

So where in the abstract does it back up your claims of a 40% power increase.

I don't think we need to go that far. Wouldn't it warrant a scientific study if pedaling mechanics could be improved sufficiently to attain a "significant" increase in sustainable power? I would define significant as something in the vicinity of 5% or greater. I, for one, would attempt to improve my pedaling mechanics for a 5% increase in FT. But, I wouldn't attempt such a change in mechanics merely on the basis of a "money back for any reason" proposal. I would need to be persuaded that there was (1) a biomechanical scientific logic behind the claim of improvement and (2) a sound, scientific study supporting such improvement in a majority of study subjects.



The problem with making adjustments to your basic technique is that when the pressure is turned on, you revert back to your old basic technique. You need to make a clean break and realize that different techniques are needed for the various requirements that can arise in competitive cycling. In that article on the quest for pedalling perfection, Hallett also wrote, " The scientific approach assumes that the act of pedalling can be analysed, that an optimal action can be determined and that, once understood, this perfect pedalling style can be learned and practised by anyone. If, on the other hand, pedalling is an art in the sense of a facility or knack, then it becomes an individual accomplishment of potentially infinite variety. Unfortunately for the scientists, all the evidence suggests that it is the latter. "
The evidence may suggest the latter but the scientific approach is correct. What the scientists are lacking is a clear objective and it is a simple one. Pedal in such a way that it enables you to combine arm resistance with leg power when seated in the saddle. Once you solve this, the cumulative advantages roll in and supply all the evidence that you have solved the mystery of pedalling perfection. There will be no need for lab equipment to confirm it and as the scientific approach correctly assumes, there is only one way to do this and it can be learned and practised by anyone.

So where in the abstract does it back up your claims of a 40% power increase.

Nowhere, and there is no reason to expect that it would. Our 40% power increase claim requires 6-9 months of pretty much exclusive PC use in training. This study looked at changes that occurred in 6 weeks of 1 hour a week use of the device.

Nowhere, and there is no reason to expect that it would. Our 40% power increase claim requires 6-9 months of pretty much exclusive PC use in training. This study looked at changes that occurred in 6 weeks of 1 hour a week use of the device.

Again, please provide evidence that a typical cyclist (as defined by you, i.e., a cat 2 or 3 rider) has gained a 40% increase in power. Any Cat 2 or 3 rider would have jumped from their "typical" status to World Class level in those 9 months (i.e., they'd have been catapulted from cat 2 or 3 to being on a Div 1 or Div 2 squad).

Ric

Again, please provide evidence that a typical cyclist (as defined by you, i.e., a cat 2 or 3 rider) has gained a 40% increase in power. Any Cat 2 or 3 rider would have jumped from their "typical" status to World Class level in those 9 months (i.e., they'd have been catapulted from cat 2 or 3 to being on a Div 1 or Div 2 squad).

Ric

I just don't have power results from any of these riders - what they usually give us are race results, which will not satisfy your requirements - as I have already given you several anecdotes of the kinds of reports we receive and it is clearly unconvincing to you. So, let us say PC's don't provide any cycling improvement. We will just sell them to the triathletes and other sports teams and rehab professionals for the running improvement, injury rehab benefits, and injury prevention benefits they provide. Our running improvement claims are probably more outrageous than the cycling claims. But, you probably don't believe those claims either? So, we will just have to carry on without your seal of approval.

I look forward to the time an adequate study of my claims is actually done to see how close I got to what the actual number really is. When such a study is done then we will probably use that number.

Again, please provide evidence that a typical cyclist (as defined by you, i.e., a cat 2 or 3 rider) has gained a 40% increase in power. Any Cat 2 or 3 rider would have jumped from their "typical" status to World Class level in those 9 months (i.e., they'd have been catapulted from cat 2 or 3 to being on a Div 1 or Div 2 squad).

Ric

I might add, that going from a Cat 2 to world class rider requires a lot more than simply being able to generate a lot more power on a training stand or, even, on the road in a TT. Or, do you think that is all there is to it?

I look forward to the time an adequate study of my claims is actually done to see how close I got to what the actual number really is. When such a study is done then we will probably use that number.
Why not commission a study yourself? If 40% turns out to be the right number, surely the cycling world will beat a path to your door. A 3rd party study could be the best marketing your product would ever receive.

Why not commission a study yourself? If 40% turns out to be the right number, surely the cycling world will beat a path to your door. A 3rd party study could be the best marketing your product would ever receive.

First, we are not a multi-national corporation with tons of money to throw at this and if we pay for the study that introduces bias right there and can be used (and will be used by the naysayers) to discount any results the study shows. People have already used the fact that we simply provided Luttrell with cranks for his study as evidence that study should be discounted. So, a study ideally should be totally independent. Just got an inquiry from a reasearcher who got a grant to purchase cranks for a study. That is the scientifically optimum way to go. I look forward to those results but I am sure it will take 1 or 2 years before anything is published.

Second, such a study to prove or disprove our 40% claim is going to be very hard to do. Where is someone going to find X number of matched and currently reasonably well-trained cyclists who will commit to being in a study for 9 months that must surely encompass a racing season?

Third, independent studies are being done and more are soon to be started. From a scientific perspective, it is more important right now just to show that they work substantially better than traditional training techniques (what Luttrell tried to do) rather than wasting time tring to prove any specific number we expect to see after a prolonged period when it is still open scientifically that they work at all. If I were to commission a study I would rather spend the money proving the running benefits (there are many more runners than cyclists), the rehab benefits (there are many more injured people than runners and cyclists combined), and/or the injury prevention aspects (more still here than all the others above combined). And, then of course, we have had the anecdotal reports from users of improving erections in those with erectile dysfunction (yes, there is a theoretical basis for why this might occur). Now there is a study worth paying for. :-)

Fourth, no study is perfect and, whatever the result, will not necessarily constitute "proof" to the nay-sayers. Further, any particular study may not choose subjects that are similar you. If the subjects are different from yourself you could say "well, that doesn't apply to me". From a sales perspective, such a study, while it would be helpful, is "unnecessary" as our 90 day moneyback guarantee makes it possible for each person to determine for themselves whether they will work for them and whether the changes they are seeing (whether it will reach the 40% level or not) are worth the money to them. No need to worry whether a study applies to you or was sufficiently rigorous to prove the benefit to the doubters. The only people who are put off are those who "know" they can't do what we say so demand "proof" before they will even try them. They tend to be very vocal. Not much I can do about that.

I just don't have power results from any of these riders - what they usually give us are race results, which will not satisfy your requirements - as I have already given you several anecdotes of the kinds of reports we receive and it is clearly unconvincing to you."

You clearly missunderstand, or are being this way on purpose. I do not to see a scientific study for a 40% increase in power. That sort of increase in power is so large that it would stick out like a sore thumb, and as i previously pointed out a "typical" cyclist would go from being 'typical' (i.e., 2nd or 3rd category rider) to being world class (i.e., div 1 or 2 pro) in 6 to 9 months.

Now surely, in the last 6 years or however long your product has been out, this must have occured for you to make and continue to make such a statement?


So, let us say PC's don't provide any cycling improvement.

that sounds closer to the truth

ric

You clearly missunderstand, or are being this way on purpose. I do not to see a scientific study for a 40% increase in power. That sort of increase in power is so large that it would stick out like a sore thumb, and as i previously pointed out a "typical" cyclist would go from being 'typical' (i.e., 2nd or 3rd category rider) to being world class (i.e., div 1 or 2 pro) in 6 to 9 months.

Now surely, in the last 6 years or however long your product has been out, this must have occured for you to make and continue to make such a statement?

As I have stated before, such scientific "proof" does not exist. I have enough data to convince myself that the claim is reasonable for our typical customer (and even our non-typical customer including professional cyclists at every level - Bettini, Backstadt, Garzelli, diLuca, Hincapie, Leiphemer, etc., etc. - feel they have something to offer even to them) and the bulk of the reports we get back from customers report speed improvements that cluster around a calculated 40% power improvement. Further, only about 2-3 per thousand customers send them back for refund and I have never had a customer come back and complain that our marketing misled them. Whether the actual average improvement is 10%, 20%, 40%, or 60% is irrelevant as customers who try the product do not feel snookered or misled. Would you be happier if we didn't give a number and just said "substantial improvements can be expected"? I would expect you would come back and ask for a number. There is no pleasing some.

I am comfortable with the claims. You can choose to believe them or not. You have apparently chosen not. So be it.

As I have stated before, such scientific "proof" does not exist. I have enough data to convince myself that the claim is reasonable for our typical customer (and even our non-typical customer including professional cyclists at every level - Bettini, Backstadt, Garzelli, diLuca, Hincapie, Leiphemer, etc., etc. - feel they have something to offer even to them) and the bulk of the reports we get back from customers report speed improvements that cluster around a calculated 40% power improvement. Further, only about 2-3 per thousand customers send them back for refund and I have never had a customer come back and complain that our marketing misled them. Whether the actual average improvement is 10%, 20%, 40%, or 60% is irrelevant as customers who try the product do not feel snookered or misled. Would you be happier if we didn't give a number and just said "substantial improvements can be expected"? I would expect you would come back and ask for a number. There is no pleasing some.

I am comfortable with the claims. You can choose to believe them or not. You have apparently chosen not. So be it.

You're the one that suggested a 40% increase in power for the typical cyclist. As i have stated before, a 40% increase in power would turn a "typical" cyclist into a world class one. assuming people have actually purchased your cranks (or use them), then some of these typical cyclists must have improved that much, or frankly, you're misleading people.

As to what the actual percentage is, it must surely be relevant, otherwise it's misleading and you can be prosecuted for false information (at least in the UK this is true with Trading Standards, i have no idea about this in the USA). Else the average improvement (for arguments sake) could be 1% but you decide to label it as (e.g.) 50%.

Why do you think i would be happy if the improvement was labelled as substantial?

Ric

Fourth, no study is perfect and, whatever the result, will not necessarily constitute "proof" to the nay-sayers.
That's true, but it might help sway the fence-sitters.


From a sales perspective, such a study, while it would be helpful, is "unnecessary" as our 90 day moneyback guarantee makes it possible for each person to determine for themselves whether they will work for them and whether the changes they are seeing (whether it will reach the 40% level or not) are worth the money to them.
The guarantee is a good starting point, but unfortunately it's impossible to refund the pain and lost training time for those people that didn't feel the PCs were worth it. Most of the reviews indicate that the cranks must be working because of the intense pain and muscle failure experienced during the inital adaptation process, but that's not a very good metric for me and I'm not really willing to wager 3 months of race training on a 'money back guarantee.' It'd take a controlled study to get me off the fence and willing to dedicate 90 days of my training time.

Dr. Stephen Cheung wrote a series of PezCycling articles on his PC use, and while he goes on about how his Polar Index value (something about smooth application of power, I guess) has gone from ~17% to 30% and how that must be a "huge testament to the potential benefits of the device," his MAP (which is something that I can understand) has increased by 10w from his pre-season value of 275w to 285w after 5 months of use. I'd expect most any training plan could yield a 5% increase from pre-season to mid-season performance, so that's not particularly compelling.

Regarding efficiency, the argument seems to be that more efficiency translates eventually into more power, and that's not necessarily true. If you take a race car and add a bunch of efficiency measures to it, it will not go faster, it'll just be more efficient (and maybe not even as fast as before). There is very little relationship between things that are powerful and things that are efficient -- the most powerful things are typically very inefficient, and the most efficient things are typically not very powerful.

You're the one that suggested a 40% increase in power for the typical cyclist. As i have stated before, a 40% increase in power would turn a "typical" cyclist into a world class one. assuming people have actually purchased your cranks (or use them), then some of these typical cyclists must have improved that much, or frankly, you're misleading people.

You are the one who presumes that increasing the 30 to 60 minute power of a typical cyclist will turn them into world class. I have never made that claim and I believe "world class" is much more complicated that 60 minute TT power. Hopefully soon we will have some power data from the Mapei center in Italy on improvements documented in the already elite.


As to what the actual percentage is, it must surely be relevant, otherwise it's misleading and you can be prosecuted for false information (at least in the UK this is true with Trading Standards, i have no idea about this in the USA). Else the average improvement (for arguments sake) could be 1% but you decide to label it as (e.g.) 50%.

Well, why don't you turn me in or any of my UK distributors. My God, it is a number that tries to convey what kind of improvement "typical" new users see. It is by no means a guarantee that everyone will see it. Lots of people have threatened me with this and I keep waiting for the authorities to clamp down on me or throw me in the slammer. Do you make any promises to your coaching clients? Where is the proof of what you say to them?

Why do you think i would be happy if the improvement was labelled as substantial?

Ric

Read what I wrote again. I thought you wouldn't be happy with that claim either and would want me to specify "how substantial" the improvement would be if I did make such a genral claim. You think I am a charlatan and wouldn't be happy with any claim of improvement however it was stated.

Don't take my word about them (no worries there clearly). There are plenty of users in the UK, why don't you ask some of them what they have found. Why don't you start with Magnus Backstadt, or Ian of Gears and Tears (of course, he is prejudiced as he sells them there).

You are the one who presumes that increasing the 30 to 60 minute power of a typical cyclist will turn them into world class. I have never made that claim and I believe "world class" is much more complicated that 60 minute TT power. Hopefully soon we will have some power data from the Mapei center in Italy on improvements documented in the already elite.


there's plenty of events that rely very heavily on being able to produce a high mean power for 60-mins, e.g., the World TT Championships.


Well, why don't you turn me in or any of my UK distributors. My God, it is a number that tries to convey what kind of improvement "typical" new users see.


you keep avoiding my point about the typical user, which you defined, and which you suggested how much they'd improve.


It is by no means a guarantee that everyone will see it.


and by definition, as Rap Daddyo pointed out, that mean's that for an average of 40% increase to occur, some must see much bigger values.


Lots of people have threatened me with this and I keep waiting for the authorities to clamp down on me or throw me in the slammer. Do you make any promises to your coaching clients? Where is the proof of what you say to them?


No i don't suggest what improvement they could make it, as it would be impossible.


Read what I wrote again. I thought you wouldn't be happy with that claim either and would want me to specify "how substantial" the improvement would be if I did make such a genral claim. You think I am a charlatan and wouldn't be happy with any claim of improvement however it was stated.


if you recall, i mentioned that 4% would be more plausible (although still highly significant). Note: i am not suggesting that the PCs would increase power by 4%, that figure was simply chosen as it was a factor of times smaller than the figure that is suggested

Don't take my word about them (no worries there clearly).
don't worry i won't.

ric

there's plenty of events that rely very heavily on being able to produce a high mean power for 60-mins, e.g., the World TT Championships.

you keep avoiding my point about the typical user, which you defined, and which you suggested how much they'd improve.

Does it help my case any that Michael Rogers is a PowerCranker? Why would you presume that, based upon my 40% power improvement claim in the typical new user, a Cat 2 rider could start training on PC's and leap frog over the current World TT champion, who also trains on them, and has for several years?


and by definition, as Rap Daddyo pointed out, that mean's that for an average of 40% increase to occur, some must see much bigger values.

And some do, I posted the results of triathlete Joe Skufka who reported improving his speed on his monthly test 12 mile TT loop from 20 to 25 mph in only 6 months. This improvement calculates to almost a doubling of power! Plus, he saw substantial running improvements setting PB's starting in about 6 weeks. But, since he didn't win IM Hawaii or the TDF I guess it doesn't mean anything. In fact, he subsequently has improved that speed to 28 mph and he still hasn't won IM Hawaii, or any Ironman for that matter. Either increasing 30 minute power 40% (or 100%, or more) isn't what it is cracked up to be (so why do we try?) or the gap between the typical amateur and world class pro is substantially more than you presume.

Does it help my case any that Michael Rogers is a PowerCranker? Why would you presume that, based upon my 40% power improvement claim in the typical new user, a Cat 2 rider could start training on PC's and leap frog over the current World TT champion, who also trains on them, and has for several years?

Either increasing 30 minute power 40% (or 100%, or more) isn't what it is cracked up to be (so why do we try?) or the gap between the typical amateur and world class pro is substantially more than you presume.

Then perhaps it is you who doesn't know what they're talking about. for e.g., back in '96 i was a typical category 2 cyclist, with a mass of 68 kg and a sustainable power of ~ 300 W (i.e., a power to mass ratio of ~4.4 W/kg) which is shown here http://www.science4sport.com/powerprofiling.xls as "very good". That sort of power to mass is typical for 2nd and 3rd category riders.

An increase in power of 40% would take me to 420 W, or a power to mass ratio of 6.2 W/kg. At the same time as i recorded my 300 W, Chris Boardman broke the World Hour Record, at an estimated average power of ~442 W. Boardman is the same height and mass as me.

Later on in 2000 (???) the record was disallowed, and Boardman set a new record, just beating the previous mark, set by Merckx. Estimated power for that record was ~ 400 - 410 W. So, with my theoretical 420 W (300 W plus your 40%) it would allow me to break the World Hour Record...

Whatever happened to "your" rider (the triathlete) who was going to break Boardmans record?

Ric

Whatever happened to "your" (the triathlete) who was going to break Boardmans record?

Ric

The triathlete? He was more talk than substance I guess. Anyhow, at least one user has broken an hour record (Sam Whittinham broke the 1 hour HPV record at something over 52 mph on a rolling course I believe). It just wasn't Boardman's record. Sam is also the fastest cyclist on earth increasing his own world speed record from 72 to over 80 mph the season after he got on PC's, which calculates to a power increase of just about 40% assuming the aerodynamics were similar). But, then, what does that mean? Since getting on PC's he hasn't won the TDF either or been invited to go to the world TT championships or become a DIV I team leader.

The triathlete? He was more talk than substance I guess.


I love the way you bitch about your riders. Good customer care there.

Sam is also the fastest cyclist on earth increasing his own world speed record from 72 to over 80 mph the season after he got on PC's, which calculates to a power increase of just about 40% assuming the aerodynamics were similar). But, then, what does that mean? Since getting on PC's he hasn't won the TDF either or been invited to go to the world TT championships or become a DIV I team leader.

Fair play to Sam, but he's not the fastest cyclist on earth by a long way. He may be the fastest HPV rider though. I'm sure someone will correct me, but the fastest cyclist on earth is probably around a speed of 250 to 300 km/hr.

Ric

[QUOTE=Fday]The triathlete? He was more talk than substance I guess.


Frank, where have you been lately? We miss your outrageous claims on the SlowTwitch forum. Raced all over the world and still have not found one AG or pro triathlete who admits to actually using your PC's. Several blush when the subject comes up, so I assume they spent boocoo bucks on them with no results.

The PC's remind me of the oval chainrings back in the late 80's, which were a scam.:o

[QUOTE=ric_stern/RST]You're the one that suggested a 40% increase in power for the typical cyclist. As i have stated before, a 40% increase in power would turn a "typical" cyclist into a world class one. assuming people have actually purchased your cranks (or use them), then some of these typical cyclists must have improved that much, or frankly, you're misleading people.

As to what the actual percentage is, it must surely be relevant, otherwise it's misleading and you can be prosecuted for false information (at least in the UK this is true with Trading Standards, i have no idea about this in the USA). Else the average improvement (for arguments sake) could be 1% but you decide to label it as (e.g.) 50%.




Legally I believe Frank would be ok. The PC's advantage comes from the instant total unweighting effect. This I estimate to be worth about 5 to 7 lbs added to the downstroke. So the percentage power increase would depend on the downward force of a rider who does not unweight his pedal. For a low gear spinner type small force, the percentage increase could be up to what Frank claims or higher. The bottom line is, Frank admits that for the rider who already correctly totally unweights his pedal, there is no gain.