pealling push up push down - Page 51

If one is looking for feedback as to what one is doing or how one is improving I believe the stop watch does that just as good as a power meter. No leap of faith needed under any circumstances. What we are talking about is "does the athlete get any extra benefit" from spending that money? I would submit that the average athlete tends to see more frequent and bigger improvements if they spend their money on a pair of powercranks (and, then, using them) than if spend even more money on a coach, a power meter, or both.

That is not to say that a coach or a power meter is, necessarily, useless. If I were a coach I would want my athlete to spend the extra money on a power meter also because I can then be assured that the athlete is doing the workouts I prescribe. Tigermilk says he thinks the benefits of PowerCranks comes from forcing the athlete to be more focused. I disagree. It is a better argument that this is where the benefit of a power meter lies, keeping the athlete focused. PowerCranks work because they effectively teach and train a more powerful way of pedaling a bike. It is the only explanation that makes any sense to explain the numerous reports such as Swampy's. A coach and power meter cannot do what PowerCranks do. But, everything a coach and power meter can do can be added on top of what PowerCranks can do. Many coaches embrace the combination of the two. Why a coach would feel threatened by PowerCranks or choose to not even experiment with the technology is baffling to me.

Just incase it wasn't obvious, I didn't just re-jump on the bike when I bolted on the Powercranks. I'd actually been back on the bike for a couple of years before that (2005). I was going like I felt - older, fatter and slower.

Using the Deathride from 2005 as a point of reference, I started training in earnest all of 10 to 12 weeks before that years ride.

2005 = 205lb of mucho suckage.
2006 = sucked slightly less (mid 190s) but still only 4 passes.
2007 = down to 176lb but it still sucked despite finishing.
It was here that I bought "The Cranks."
2008 ~3 months off the bike immediately before the ride (I had only a handful of rides out on the bike) and back up into the mid 180lb range - ride = "great sucess" as Borat would say. Many beers were had after the ride and I felt great the day after.
2009 the Deathride was like a walk in the park. Two notable data point came from the Alta Alpina ride which uses the same roads as the Deathride. Comparing times up the harder/longer side of Ebbetts pass I was 15 minutes faster during the AAC (Ebbetts peaks at mile 126) than the prior years Deathride (Ebbetts peaks at 55miles). On the climb from Topaz to the top of Monitor, where the first 7.5miles (12km) average 7.6% and climb 3000ft, my times were the same for the AAC (mile 184) as they were for the Deathride (mile 35) Just to reiterate - training through those years didn't really change that much. 2007 got the most training and certainly the most climbing specific training prior to Julys ride.

I got the PC's sometime towards the end of 2007 and started using them at the end of that year and had started to note an improvement after the initial three months then I had more than a couple of months off the bike during the first half of 2008. As of Oct 2008 my FTP was ~230 - 240 ish, which is when I got my powermeter. Prior to that I'd used a Polar CS to track changes in fitness based upon the time honored method of riding up the same hill at various times of the year. My times up the hill in Oct 2008 were just off the pace of my best times during that 3 year span.

My training hasn't changed that much during the last four years. It's been slightly more consistant the past 9 months but even that has had big gaps of a few weeks here and there of not even touching the bike. Having the powermeter has helped track changes but as alot of my training is indoors and that I tend to 'ease' into the intervals over the course of a couple of minutes rather than just jump to the desired wattage, I don't really believe there has been a significant change there although it is easier to track effort.

But hey, what can I say, sucks for you that you didn't see the improvements I did. Feel free to continue to tell me that the change in pedalling style had no effect on my improvement and it was all due to 'other factors' despite the other factors not really changing.

Maybe it was due to parking my cars in a different oritentation and the polarity of the batteries created some mystical energy field or the fact that I've spent most of my time training the past year looking at a 500hp muscle car. Maybe the big V8 in the car = visual enticement to get a bigger engine in Swampy! * Fergie was right, I willed myself better, in this case through visual enhancement! If that really works I'm going to print a picture of myself butt naked and photoshop on an elephant's wang! If my training, equipment (apart from the cranks) and diet hasn't really changed since 2005 then it must be something completely weird and whacky that happened after the end of 2007. Maybe Sam Smiths ale has worlds first digestible EPO and horse steroids in their ale, I did switch back to drinking that around that time. Could it be that I stretched myself to an extra 100watts or purified my inner being by drinking filtered water rather than stuff from the tap?

* Actually, the engine got smaller. Spirometry tests from the early 90s showed any above average lung volume, now I'm way below average...

Again, apparently you have not ever tried to "run a proper study" involved in exercise science. First, you would need to find 10-20 or so subjects who would agree to not change their training in any way (got to control all the variables) for a period of 6 months to a year except for those who are part of the experimental group, who will add PowerCranks to the mix. How good do you want these subjects to be? Good luck on trying to find a bunch of serious racers, all in one place, who will agree to such a regimen.

Who is going to pay for the study, testing, etc? If we pay for it then the criticism is that it wasn't an independent study, of course, if the results are positive. Don't give me this crap that the study will be judged on its merits, Luttrell is summarily discounted and criticized by some of the more vocal "naysayers" with strong academic background (Coggan) on "ethical" grounds, simply because he neglected to mention that we furnished him with a pair of cranks for him to do the study. Have you ever heard any of these people discuss the merits of that study?

And, here is the "study" on PowerCranks that seems to impress more new users than any other: It is a study of n=1 or 2, that is, people watch their friends get on the cranks (laughing at them all the time for doing so) and then, over a year of so, watch the friend improve while they stay stagnant (or improve a lot less). We sell many more crank sets from this "word of mouth", "watched my friend improve", studies of one than we would ever see from any study such as Luttrell or anything else, if it is even possible to do.

And, I look forward to your telling me about all these other "studies" these other manufacturers are funding. I look forward to seeing the "reasearch" that proves external bearings are superior to the old bottom brackets. Or, that training with a power meter is superior to training without one. Or, almost anything else.

Yes , as a coach I do want my athletes to improve and will use any legal method of improving performance at my disposal and yes I have some clients who will spend unlimited sums of improved performance. This is conditional that I back up anything I say. I don't expect people I coach to take my word, try me for three months and if not happy move on I expect them to question everything. So when I tell them to use certain equipment, eat certain foods, stretch one way before exercise and another afterwards or use a certain training method there is a medical, physiological, psychological or biomechanical rationale behind it.

I encourage all athletes to train with a power meter. When calibrated properly nothing does a better job of monitoring intensity and tracking progress. A stopwatch is a piss poor alternative. A 5min 4000m pursuit on Denton Park (400m concrete outdoors) is completely different to a 5min pursuit on ILT (250m board indoor). A 16km TT is completely different in winter compared to summer.

I don't understand why you are stalling on a study that will completely prove the rationale for your product. Till then I will assume the product is filling a gap for a problem that isn't there. Working with a lot of newer cyclists I haven't found one yet that needed more than 2mins coaching on their pedalling and most of the issues were due to poor bike set up, injury or inflexibility.

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

How does the Powercrank style of pedaling differ from that of the circular pedaling expert. Do you know what is meant by the circular pedaling style, if you do, you should be able to explain the difference.

So you can teach someone in minutes what Greg Lemond said took him years...

You must be good. Where do I sign up?

What you are saying is all well and good. However, I would like to point out that your coaching philosophy has come about not because anyone has proven that what you do is better than what others do but because you have read literature, listened to others you respect and have reached your own conclusions, based upon your knowledge and experience, as to what you think is best. You have zero scientific evidence to prove what you do is optimal for your athletes yet you seem to demand that of me. At least PowerCranks has some scientific evidence (Luttrell) to support the concept, why do you keep saying there is none. You are in business to sell your services. Where is the evidence your services are worth what you say they are?

So, you believe that no rider would ever need more than 2 minutes to "fix" their "pedaling". So be it. But, upon what evidence do you come to that conclusion? Swampy might take issue with you on that.

And, I am not stalling on anything. Anyone who wants to do a study can approach us and if they have a good protocol we will support it in whatever we can and is appropriate. Many have approached us and we have sent out many cranks (and even some cash) in response to many of these requests. Few have actually done what they said they would do and even fewer come through with anything publishable.

You are a big proponent of using power meters as a feedback tool. But you have come to this conclusion without a single solitary shred of scientific evidence that using said tool gives superior results to using any other effort feedback tool. Why do you hold those who think PC's to be a useful tool to a different standard? They reach that conclusion based upon their knowledge and experience. Yet, you have no experience with the product. Where do you get off criticizing their evaluation?

I think that is because Greg LeMond cared about pedaling technique (I wonder if that got him anywhere?). Fergie doesn't. To Fergie, bike fit is pedaling technique. I would submit they are completely different things.

I don't know that there is a difference. What do you mean by the "circular pedaling style" or the "circular pedaling expert"? Show me the force patterns around the circle as to what you are referring to and I will be glad to comment.

Is that different from the linear style? If so, why? Would Jack Anky approve of the difference?

We hear of people who say that when they're tired they're "pedalling in squares" Given the fact that more people concentrate on the uppy 'n downy bits, wouldn't that be like pedalling in quadrangles? Could one calculate the quadrilateral quotient of recipricating extremities?

Well, if as I have always believed, there is no difference, the case is closed. Coyle has already confirmed that mashing is more powerful than circular pedaling. By the circular style, I mean the objectives of the rider who is using it and by the expert, I mean the rider who has perfected it. Circular is the weakest style of pedaling, useful only for warming up or for muscle relaxation when riding in the shelter of a group.

Very different, the objectives of circular are attempted application of some tangential force at all times through the crank revolution which involves minimal force across the top, less than normal force on the downstroke, minimal force backward past 6 o'c and minimal force on the upstroke. Anquetil's linear involved the merging of 'across the top' and 'downstroke' and applying maximal mostly full tangential force from start to finish of this 180 deg, the less effective tangential was between 4 and 5 o'c

Plenty of proof for the principles of fitness. I would say nearly 75% of the studies done provide overwhelming support for the concept of specificity (what you train for is what you get). Lots of eveidence that to improve one needs to overload the athlete. Also for individuality and reversability.

Lot of research on power meters showing that they do what they say they do, measure power. Sure some people read more into it than that but a properly calibrated power meter does what it is supposed to do.

You claim that Pcranks improve performance and have no evidence to support this. The Lutrell study shows improvements in non performance related aspects and when the test is performance all the studies so far show no improvement.

So yes I can't prove that my coaching directly improved performance. I can point to the fact that riders I work with who follow my advice seem to go better. But this is not the basis of my marketing, in fact I don't market, people come to me via word of mouth. To these people I stress that I offer evidence based coaching. This gives me plenty of scope to work with an athlete and their goals without having to resort to gimmicks.

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

Cycling efficiency is a "non-performance related aspect"? Wow, I'll bet many would be surprised to hear that. Lance when asked once about what he thought about PowerCranks said, "well, whatever improves your efficiency". But, what does he know about cycling.

Of course, all those principles have been proven to work to some extent. What hasn't been proven is the specific application of those principles. Too much overload causes injury. that certainly doesn't improve the athlete.

So, you say you are following scientific principles. In a manner you are right. The only problem is you are guessing as to how to best apply them. You have no clue as to whether you are right or not. Of course, you think you are but you have no real evidence to support your feeling. "Evidence based coaching" is simply a marketing tool used by many to make them sound modern and up to date.

What you describe for Anquetil is pretty much what every PowerCranker does (or should do) except they also optimize the back stroke also. You seem to think that just because someone works to optimize the backstroke that they necessarily forget about the downstroke. One doesn't necessarily follow the other.