pealling push up push down - Page 101

Not buying it big fella... One could argue that tubular tires, by their nature, are dangerous - even pro's have been known to roll them at inopportune moments.

Just as with regular cranks, it's upto the rider to ensure that the inside crank is up when going around a corner. Just like getting comfortable with very high speed cornering when you first start riding, it takes a little time. Not much but there's some.

Then again, you wouldn't know.

A reference to a rule that's little more specific if you'd be so kind.

I probably communicated with him by email previously. Is he from the Dallas area by chance? He was a proponent of PCs. Here's what he said at the time: "Attached is a file from a Crit I did in Denton in early March. I attacked the field on lap 2 and ended up lapping the field solo. It was my best effort on a bike ever. Earlier that day i did a 27.04 at the Horse Country TT with 23 mph winds ( no power data ). I just started using the Power Tap as a training tool so it will take time for me to figure everything out. I am 35 years old, weigh 163, been riding for 3 years. Ran CC and track in college with best times of 4.10 mile and 31.30 10000 meters. I have a big engine but not much top end power. Only about 1100 watts is the most i have seen on the Power tap. Let me know what other info you need."

What do we take away from this? 1) just started training with power so the training is more focused, 2) still relatively new to cycling to the point I'd expect gains this year and through year 5, and 3) my god did you see those mile and 10k times? The guy is gifted aerobically. To put it in perspective, I'd be lucky to run a 5 minute mile with a pitbull chasing me. And a 31:30 10k time? Forget it. I'll be 8 or so minutes behind. BTW, if this is the same rider (and I think it is), he went to cat 2 in just a couple of years, which tells me that he is indeed gifted genetically. Personally he owes more debt of gratitude to his parents rather than PCs.

I'm coaching a 24 year old currently with slightly better run times than they guy above and he's improving quickly. Just riding for 2 months now and I expect him to really shoot his power up. He's borrowing one of my PTs and already has improved some 20% or so in just the one month of using it.

For every one of yours, I have one too. Here's a comment from a fellow Houston area rider who trains on similar terrain as I do:

>> I too train on Power Cranks with a power meter. This is my
>> third season (2nd full one) on PowerCranks, and I can't
>> say that I can detect any measureable effect on my power
>> output from using them. I guess they give me a feel good
>> about my pedal stroke, and my hip flexors are now stronger,
>> but all of my power numbers remain similar to what they were
>> either before or without the use of PC's. (I ditch them
>> for a few months periodically).

Probably the same guy. I am not sure someone with that aerobic engine and background would see the same improvement over 5 years as the usual neophyte. Perhaps some of his improvement is simple training effect but he didn't seem to think so. It is not like he is new to exercise and doesn't understand the concept.

Well, I don't claim that everyone one will see improvement, especially wonder about someone who periodically "ditches them for a few months". Wonder how he is using them when he is using them. But, Mr. Dallas states he thinks training with PowerCranks are what is mostly responsible for the improvement he has seen over this period.

It is a shame the new pedal based power meters were not available when you did your test as we would be able to know if you were pedaling the same on regular cranks compared to PowerCranks. We could answer the question with some definitiveness as to whether you were fully adapted or not.

And I don't doubt PCs impacted the training effect. Having used them, I can see how they would positively affect the training effect. The issue is, and has always been, whether PCs offer anything more than the training effect. Just to ride them early on causes most riders to ride in their sweet spot zone just to stay on top of the crank coordination. And it's well known that sweet spot training positively impacts aerobic power. Regarding the comment "the best $1000 I've spent" the same could be said for a coach, a power meter, or any other training aid. Heck, if streamers on the handlebars are what it takes for someone to get out there and work hard, that's a good thing.

The one thing we will never know with Mr. Dallas is if he'd started using PCs after he plateaued on his power and saw additional gains. That's really the question in my mind. My personal experience demonstrates to me I did not see that. Even one of the PC "poster boys" Marco Pinotti does not claim an increased functional threshold from PC use. And if anyone is likely to have plateaued, it's an international pro.

Well, our data would suggest that they do more than "just training effect" (they certainly seem to impact running which normal cycling does not). In fact, your own statement suggests that they do more because you say you can see how they would positively affect the training effect. To me training effect is training effect and if you look at it critically you would expect them to negatively affect training effect since most people drop their mileage substantially when they get on the PowerCranks. How does one positively affect the training effect without drugs? So, to me, to say that implies they are doing more than what one would expect from training effect.

Do you care about short term or long term? Sure folks drop mileage in the first month or two, but after that you are right where you were prior to use. And more mileage does not necessarily equal more fitness. Indeed, you can maximize training effect in relatively few hours a week. The drugs comment is ludicrous and shows your clear misunderstanding of modern cycling training methods.

Two people of equal ability, doing equal work, should see equal training effect. How is it possible that reported PowerCranks results come from increasing the training effect alone? It is ok if you use your understanding of modern training methods (the stuff you say I misundersand) in your explanation, I'll bet I can figure it out.

Take 4 riders who are from a family of quadruplets:

Rider A - 10 years of riding/racing experience, solid base foundation and has plateaued performance and out of season form does not significantly drop off. Continues usual training regimen with regular cranks.

Rider B - same as rider A but continues usual training regimen with your cranks.

Rider C - relatively new rider. Begins to train properly with regular cranks.

Rider D - same as rider C but continues usual training regimen with your cranks.

All 4 riders do the same exact protocol. Reduced mileage/time for a couple of weeks (which allows the PC users time to adapt) followed by a return to normal interval training for riders A & B, which is new for riders C & D. Intervals are performed at equal effort for all riders.

Question #1 - which rider(s), given the same stimulus, would see a larger increase in sustainable power? That is, which one(s) see bigger gains from training effect?

Question #2 - Supposes riders A & B perform twice as much work as riders C & D. Would they experience even more gains from training effect than had they stayed with their existing protocol?

I will propose answers to your questions if you will answer mine, what do you mean when you say the PC's improve the training effect?

Because while duration drops the riders are working at a higher intensity as they adapt to the novel training stimulus. This is the foundation of the strength and conditioning industry that building more strength will allow you to carry out more work. Nice theory but lacking in evidence.

Why? Specificity. What you train for is what you improve at. Train to improve your full squat ability and you will become better full squats. But even though it is the same exercise it will have little influence on your half squat ability and certainly while most S&C trainers would love you to pay them to improve your squat it isn't going to transfer to on the bike performance.

It may improve condition. I have said if playing tiddlywinks burns the calories better for an individual than other activities then do it. I have found that higher intensity exercise is ideal for getting people into good condition over long duration training.

My suggestion for a cyclist is to train on the bike to improve condition to get the double whammy of better condition and specific fitness.

__________________
Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach
http://hamishferguson.blogspot.com/

I already have answered that, in post #1504.

Training specificity isn't the end all be all of sports training though, is it? You don't see professional baseball players throwing balls harder and harder just because they throw so many balls in a day. Granted, you can make progress that way too because throwing balls fast is a trainable skill, but they also lift weights to get stronger and more powerful.
Now, that's not a fair comparison to cycling(at least not endurance cycling) in this debate, because weight training can be used to train your body to generate lots of power in a short period of time, which is what you're trying to do when you throw a ball, while cycling is about generating continuous power over a long period of time.
I think there is still an important idea here though. You don't train in the exact same way you compete. You train in a way that pushes boundaries, for the same reason it's easier for people to regain fitness in some sport when they've already been fit in the past.
But saying more would probably just be lecturing you in things you already know and understand far more completely than I do.

P.S. I hope you're not saying half squats are more important for cyclists to train than full squats. That's a point I would be willing to argue against.

Certainly not. Conditioning, Nutrition, Motivation, Experience, Skill, the list is endless. Also in terms of principles of fitness there is also overload, recovery, individuality and so on.

Do they need to? If a Basketball player can squat 150kg are they going to be a better player if they can squat 250kg?

This is the age old argument between specific training and auxillary training. I have heard of cyclists doing stair running, sand dune running, carrying weights uphill, training in heated rooms to increase intensity or at least perceived intensity.

But is this better than say a pursuiter who can ride 4000m at an average of 500 watts heading to the track and doing efforts at 510 watts to push through a boundary.

So while both forms of training provide a mental toughness challenge I know which one is going to make me a stronger cyclist.

I wouldn't suggest a cyclist do squats at all. But if I was doing Powerlifting I would be doing full squats.

__________________
Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach
http://hamishferguson.blogspot.com/

I will wait for Tigermilk to answer the question since it is his assertion and he has, at least, some familiarity with the cranks so we might hope his answer to make a little sense.

You were making the error of basing training load purely on milage. One can make gains in fitness from doing less but working harder. Using a novel training stimulus (weights, Gizmocranks, running) you work harder and but do less volume. My argument is that these forms of non specific training detract from the real goal which is to ride the bike faster.

__________________
Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach
http://hamishferguson.blogspot.com/