pealling push up push down

Fday

Was he on PowerCranks?

Fday

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

RapDaddyo

I did read the study abstract, and would be interested in reading the full text. Do you have a link to the full text version? My quick conclusion was that the study did not address my primary objective: to increase my FT. The study did not appear to test that question. IOW, if my FT is 250w (fortunately it is a bit more than that), then what change in FT am I likely to realize as a function of improving my pedaling mechanics alone as opposed to the old fashioned way -- lots of intervals or MBing amongst Bengal Tigers?

Fday

The study looked at pedaling efficiency, not at looking at increasing power. One can presume that if one increases one's hour pedaling efficiency 10% one's sustainable power for one hour would also increase 10%, but that, as yet, is unproven. this improvement was seen in 6 weeks and was compared to a control group and unlikely to occur in that time frame from intervals or any other technique.

RapDaddyo

Well, that's my problem. I don't know why I would presume that if I can increase my pedaling efficiency 10% at FT-50w that therefore I can increase my FT. Frankly, I don't care very much how efficiently I can pedal at FT-50w. I care very much how efficiently I can pedal at FT and higher. About the only advantage I see to pedaling more efficiently at FT-50w is that I can lose a race but be less fatigued as I watch the medal presentations.

Fday

Do you understand what efficiency means? It is watts to the wheel for energy expended. Why would you presume that because you become more efficient that you are unable to expend as much energy as before. If you can expend the same amount of energy you will get more watts to the wheel if you are more efficient. What is so difficult about that concept?

RapDaddyo

I probably don't understand what efficiency means. I only have a doctorate from Harvard, but I don't recall that course. What I'm talking about is pedaling mechanics at different power levels. The assumption I'm not prepared to make is that improvements in any aspect of pedaling mechanics at FT-50w translates to any improvement whatsoever at FT. I could have the most efficient pedaling mechanics known to man at 100w and so what? Now, you can continue to insult my intelligence or you can address my legitimate (IMO) question.

Fday

Then, why do you presume your pedaling mechanics change with power? I am not aware of any studies to suggest that. Our data suggests that the efficiency improvements are constant throughout the spectrum, but that is unpblished and Luttrell did not look at that. So one, I guess, needs a leep of faith to take a risk that the potential for improvement is real or one can wait for the data, however much it takes to convince you, presuming I am right and it eventually comes. You are in charge of your own destiny.

RapDaddyo

I'm not prepared to presume anything about pedaling mechanics. But, the absence of a study to suggest something doesn't mean it's not true. I've seen no study suggesting that I can't win the TdF, but I'm not prepared to presume therefore that I can win the TdF. And, logically, I can imagine that I could do certain things with respect to muscle control in the pedaling stroke at low power that I cannot do at high power because at high power I am too preoccupied with a limited range of the stroke.

Fday

Whatever.

Frank

mitosis

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

n crowley

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.

Fday

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.

ric_stern/RST

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

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com