pealling push up push down - Page 68

http://adt.ecu.edu.au/adt-public/adt...sis_BurnsJ.pdf

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

Well, we are not talking about taking sedentary people to a gym and getting them to lift wieght. Try that with experienced lifters and see how much improvement you get in 10 sessions.

And, I challenge you to show statistically significant improvement from training with a power meter in 10 sessions.

And, PowerCranks is not quite the same thing as ordinary training because they are trying to retrain the athlete. Performance actually suffers whle transitoning from one technique to another.


Your riders only ride the bike 2 days a week?
People are going to riding their bikes only two days a week?
I don't need to comment, the paper does it nicely for me. from page 64.
"There were no significant differences (i.e. p >0.5) in the variables of cycling economy and efficiency between the pre- and post-training time points for the PC group on normal cranks. However, following training there was a moderate effect size for both economy (0.93) and efficiency (0.90) in the PC group. In the NC group, economy and efficiency significantly decreased from pre- to post-testing using normal cranks, with a large effect size for economy (-1.59) and a moderate effect size for efficiency (-1.36). Furthermore, the NC group possessed significantly higher cycling economy and efficiency values than the PC group at the pre-testing time point. However, there were no differences between the PC and NC group in terms of the absolute values of these variables at the post-testing time point. This resulted in a significant interaction between the groups over time (Mean ± SD values can be seen in Figure 7).

5.2.1 Economy and Efficiency for PowerCranksTM Group on Normal Cranks vs. PowerCranksTM Group on PowerCranksTM
Subjects in the PC group cycling on normal cranks (PC on Normal Cranks) had significantly higher values of economy and efficiency at the pre-testing time point compared to when they were cycling on PowerCranks™ (PC on PowerCranks™). However, no significant differences in these variables were found between the pre- and post-testing time points in the PC group. The difference in these variables between PC on Normal Cranks and PC on PowerCranks™ remained consistent following the 5-wk training period (Mean ± SD values can be seen in Figure 7)."


Figure 7 on page 45 is quite interesting to see if I could copy and past it, Looks like Luttrell all over again. PowerCranks efficiency substantially improved except it "only" went from 21 to 22% instead of the 20 to 22% seen by Luttrell. Another difference is that the efficiency of the normal cranks group started out much higher such that there was no statistical difference in the efficiencies at the end of the study. Also, the efficiency of the NC group actually fell during the study, one would have to ask why?

It would have been interesting to know if these trends would have continued if the study had persisted beyond 5 weeks. But, alas, 5 weeks it was.

I have found another interesting/questionable thing about Figure 7. I will somehow figure out a way to post it here for everyone to see as it would be difficult to explain without the figure.

Anyhow, it appears that Burns has pretty much confirmed Luttrell at least in the ability of the power cranks to improve efficiency in the cyclist. The improvements seen by Burns were just not as large but they are clearly there. Thanks for that.

So, here is figure 7

Of particular interest to me is why he drew the lines between the pre and post testing results they way he did, to minimize the differences between the groups. Normally one would expect the author to draw from mean, or median, or average to the same value in the other test results. But here he is choosing to draw from using the minimum values when drawing the PC(NC) lines, and the maximum values when drawing the NC(NC) and PC(PC) lines. This minimizes the post training differences on this visual representation.

Also, notice how the PC(PC) changes are greater than the PC(NC) changes such that one would expect the gap to, eventually, completely close. One has to wonder where the efficiency would end up if the study had been carried out long enough for this merging of the data to occur.

I look forward to hearing Fergie's thoughts on this.

This dodge again Frank. Power meters are not a training method. They are a measure.

Retraining an cyclist to perform in a way that is different to how they will compete. Bit like giving a batter in Baseball a heavier bat to build strength or lighter one to develop speed but all you do is change their technique and make them worse at batting with a normal weight bat.

Not everyone is a Professional. And when we measure their performance gains so people make improvements in power on just 2 training sessions a week. The rest is active recovery. Others may do 7-12 training sessions a week. Principle of individuality.

But no increase in power. As we have discussed an increase in efficiency does not always equal an increase in power.

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

OK, try to do anything training related in trained cyclists and see if you can measure any difference in 10 sessions. Show me where it has been done? Why would anyone expect to be able to do same with PowerCranks?
We don't expect them to train one way and race another. The whole reason for doing the training is to change the way they race. What is so difficult about that concept for you to understand?
Isn't active recovery part of the training regimen. The principles of smart and effective training don't change simply because someone is on PowerCranks. Effective feedback regarding effort and active recovery should still be part of the plan once the athlete has achieved the proficiency with the product to do so. The time it takes the athlete to achieve such ability varies usually from 2 to 6 weeks for most.
Huh??? I don't think we have actually discussed this point about an increase in efficiency does not always equal an increase in power. I think you have simply declared it to be the case.

So, will you accept that the Burns data verifies the Luttrell finding that shows a statistically significant increase in cycling efficiency after a short period of training on PowerCranks? Whether you believe or not that would result in increased power or not is irrelevant. Does his data support Luttrells finding? If not why not?

And, how do you explain the drop in efficiency in the NC group? Does that bother you any?

Once again I ask you, what is being trained. If I got a set of PC's, they would be no more beneficial than one legged pedalling. One legged pedalling teaches you what has to be done with your idling leg if the idling pedal is to be guaranteed a resistance free passage after power input is complete. It can also demonstrate how more beneficial results can be got by allowing the other leg to assist in the more difficult areas of unweighting and resistance clearing. The explanation for the increase in efficiency is the unweighting effect. The explanation for no increase in overall power output is as I have already explained, the more you concentrate on the upstroke the less you can concentrate on the downstroke, resulting in a loss of downward force on the down stroke. What a waste of research time.

Dear Frank, learn a little something about training. 10 sessions? You can easily measure a difference in 10 sessions. Say you do 10 sessions over 2 weeks, which includes easy rides. Right now my VO2 power is off 15% or so. If I were to test my 3-6 minute power today, I can pretty much bet that after the following protocol:

Day 1 - 8x3 at pV02
Day 2 - 1 hour easy
Day 3 - 8x3.5 at pV02
Day 4 - 1 hour easy
Day 5 - 8x4 at pVO2
Day 6 - 1 hour easy
Day 7 - 6x5 at pV02
Day 8 - 1 hour easy
Day 9 - 5x6 at pV02
Day 10 - 1 hour easy
And on the 11th day he shall test!

I would feel pretty confident that my pV02 for the longer durations would edge up compared to the start of the block. This is merely specificity and training effect. Can easily do the same thing for 20 minute power, 60 minute power, 1 minute power, ... A "well trained" cyclist is typically extremely fit, but depending on the focus for that particular timeframe, certain limiters exist. It's hard to be at 100% for all systems at the same time. Training specifics are a function of the targeted event.

And you seem to imply that an increase in efficiency does equal an increase in power, but that is not necessarily the case. Now automotive engines have about the same general efficiency as humans. Efficiency is also a function of rpm, just like it is with we humans and cadence. I've got 2 cars which generate about the same amount of horsepower - a 1978 Ferrari 308GTB V-8 and 1998 BMW M3 V-6. They are both in the ~230 hp range. The Ferrari gets a whopping 13-15 mpg whereas the BMW is upwards of 22-25 mpg. I would venture that the drag is roughly similar between those 2 cars, and the weights are comparable. Of course, it would be interesting to see how my 2007 Toyota Matrix 4-banger with probably 130 hp stacks up for efficiency. It's sure efficient, but the horsepower really sucks.

Drop in efficiency in the NC group? Whoopee! Look at the error bars on the data. And I think we'd all agree that cadence and environmental factors (and probably state of rest, etc) impact efficiency. What's shown is that all groups were essentially the same at the end as at the beginning.

But even if we say "Praise the lord PCs increase efficiency. It is proven!" so what? It doesn't say anything about power across a range of cadences and durations. The Luttrell data certainly shows that there was no benefit from maximal power with either system. As someone who used your product, my head and heart tells me training method matters more.

Huh? This coming from the guy who had pretty much plateaued for 3 years and hoping to see even a 5% improvement in power in a whole year, telling me how easy it is to see an increase in only 10 training sessions. Why didn't you try that little training bit before the State time-trial? Seems like a PR would be guaranteed.
We are not comparing two engines but talking about increasing the efficiency in the same engine.
Ugh, those are not error bars but the "standard deviation" ranges for the data. And, I don't know that we can agree that all of those things affect efficiency. I am only aware that cadence is known to affect efficiency. I will have to read the paper more closely to see if he controlled for cadence. Luttrell did. Then, regarding your comment that all the groups were "essentially the same ... at the beginning", even the author noted that the groups were not the same at the beginning. "Furthermore, the NC group possessed significantly higher cycling economy and efficiency values than the PC group at the pre-testing time point." The groups were only the "same" at the end. Something brought them together which happened to be the PC group got better and the NC group got worse.
Luttrell didn't test for maximal power at the end of the test or if he did he didn't comment on it. Therefore it is not possible for you to say his data showed "there was no benefit from maximal power with either system." You could say he did not show there was any benefit at max power, because he did not comment or give any data here but it is not correct to say he showed there was no benefit because he did no such thing.

Done in my garage. After moving from a conditioning phase of training to targetting pursuit power In 8 sessions I went from 280watts to 350watts.

The part where cyclist race on one type of equipment and you expect them to train on another? It's like teaching someone French and expecting them to pass a Spanish exam.

Korff et al (2007), MSSE, 39, (6). concluded a mechanically more effective technique was not associated with an increase in efficiency.

I would be more concerned that in 5 weeks of training neither group improved. Sack the coach!

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

But he did test IAT which like Power output is a predictor of performance and found no difference between controls. I would be staggered if he didn't record PO at the end of the VO2max test seeing VO2max is such an average predictor of performance but watts at VO2max is a good performance indicator.

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

I am really impressed. What can you do in 16 weeks? a year? Why aren't you the world champion? Why don't you coach the world champion?
No it isn't. The pedals go around in circles regardless of whether PC's are on the bike or normal cranks. We are simply trying to change the coordination used to effect that motion. It isn't french and spanish, it is riding a bike.
LOL. Here is the problem. He did not train the participants to train in these mechanically more effective techniques but rather asked untrained people to do so. He found exactly what Burns did, when pedaling as PC's force one to do, initially efficiency is reduced. But, as burns also showed, with continued training this reduction becomes less. Korff concluded what he did but he proved nothing. Both Luttrell and, now, Burns have shown that training a more effective pedaling style can improve overall cycling efficiency.
Ugh, this was a study. No coach to sack. Perhaps you should pay more attention in those exercise SCIENCE classes you attend. A lot to learn I am afraid. Unfortunately I feel like you think you already know it all and are just going through the motions.

You asked if one could show a dramatic improvement in 10 sessions in a trained athlete and I said yes, I can prove this.

When a change is not needed or required and can be done on the cheap by riding a bigger gear.

And efficiency doesn't not equal performance so who cares. Let us know when you develop a product that teaches us to ride faster!

Well applied science. Again lets us know when you find some data that actually means something.

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

If you'd actually READ what I said rather than jump to conclusions, it would really help. Did I say that I'm capable of 100% of my potential any day of the year? Is any rider, even a world class rider, capable of that? Of course not. Periodization means you train different systems at different times. Be it endurance, threshold, VO2, or anaerobic systems. They are not at 100% every day of the year. You focus on anaerobic/lactate tolerance, that will improve, though at the detriment of reduced aerobic power. What I said is that CURRENTLY my VO2 power is down. It's not a focus currently. But if I decided next week to focus on that, the protocol I suggest above would generate quite nice gains. Would I improve over my all-time best? Don't know, but I didn't say I would. You took that giant leap, not me.

Took bring it home in a way you can understand, after 10 sessions of PCs I was able to pedal on PCs quite well. Maybe not for 2-3 hours, but I was able to pedal them. Specificity prevails. My power for various durations were improving on a daily basis at the beginning using them. Wasn't as high as what I was able to do with regular cranks, but it was increasing nonetheless. Again, specificity.


Deviation is a measure of the variability of any given measure. Given the deviation which is + and -, those increases/decreases are enveloped by the deviation. All the data says is that ~68% of the data is within that deviation.

Temperature and efficiency, just do a search. A couple right off the bat

Gross efficiency of muscular work during step exer...[Acta Physiol Scand. 1993] - PubMed Result
In an effort to assess the effect of ambient temperature on the gross efficiency (Effg) of step exercise 12 subjects performed a modified step test either at -15 degrees C or 21 degrees C ascending to three different heights (corresponding to light, moderate and heavy work), for 20 min each with a frequency of 18 steps min-1. Heart rate (HR), rectal temperature, skin temperatures and heat flux from skin were continuously measured. Oxygen consumption was measured during the last 5 min of each step height and perceptions of thermal sensation were recorded. The results indicate that, while using conventional clothing adequate in these temperatures, Effg is altered in a contradictory manner. At -15 degrees C Effg increased with increasing work load, whereas at 21 degrees C it decreased when the work load increased. The highest Effg (heavy work at -15 degrees C and light work at 21 degrees C) values are reflected as rather similar rectal temperatures. (37.4-37.7 degrees C) and identical mean skin temperatures (32.8 degrees C) as well as the same (slightly warm) thermal sensation of the legs. At -15 degrees C the lowest Effg in light work was probably due to the need to warm up the muscles. At 21 degrees C, on the contrary, the activation of heat dissipation systems was probably responsible for the lowest Effg in heavy work.

[The "Law specifying Emergency Care Specialists"] [Masui. 1991] - PubMed Result
Time-trial performance deteriorates in the heat. This might potentially be the result of a temperature-induced decrease in gross-efficiency (GE). The effect of high ambient temperature on GE during cycling will be studied, with the intent of determining if a heat-induced change in GE could account for the performance decrements in time trial exercise found in literature. Ten well-trained male cyclists performed 20-min cycle ergometer exercise at 60% PVO2max (power output at which VO2max was attained) in a thermo-neutral climate (N) of 15.6+/-0.3 degrees C, 20.0+/-10.3% RH and a hot climate (H) of 35.5+/-0.5 degrees C, 15.5+/-3.2% RH. GE was calculated based on VO2 and RER. Skin temperature (Tsk), rectal temperature (Tre) and muscle temperature (Tm) (only in H) were measured. GE was 0.9% lower in H compared to N (19.6+/-1.1% vs. 20.5+/-1.4%) (P<0.05). Tsk (33.4+/-0.6 degrees C vs. 27.7+/-0.7 degrees C) and Tre (37.4+/-0.6 degrees C vs. 37.0+/-0.6 degrees C) were significantly higher in H. Tm was 38.7+/-1.1 degrees C in H. GE was lower in heat. Tm was not high enough to make mitochondrial leakage a likely explanation for the observed reduced GE. Neither was the increased Tre. Increased skin blood flow might have had a stealing effect on muscular blood flow, and thus impacted GE. Cycling model simulations showed, that the decrease in GE could account for half of the performance decrement. GE decreased in heat to a degree that could explain at least part of the well-established performance decrements in the heat.

When board trained for the 92 Olympics and the first two hour records - power = kingcycle trainer only... you goose. You obviously didn't attend the BCF coaches conferences with Boardman and Keen that I did.

You silliy british american goose, training with any power at all, is A LOT, LOT different to no power. Knowing how variable power is, how easily it drops off on downhills, how you can overcook it into headwinds etc etc makes you ride a lot differently.

I'll be sure to attend the next BCF coaches conference

__________________
http://jonathanlovelock.blogspot.com/