pealling push up push down

Fday

Well, you are correct, people have gone faster on a bike. Except those going faster are getting outside assistance (drafting motor vehicles or gravity).

Fday

My goodness. Nothing makes you commit to give up 3 months before you decide to stay with them. I would say that 90% of our customers have seen enough positive change within the first two weeks that they have made their decision. We scare a lot of people with some of the transition stories but many experienced cyclists adapt and transition very quickly. Know one knows how they will adapt until they try them themselves



I suspect you will be very interested in the results of the study Dr. Cheung is soon to start on PC's. Stay tuned. Maybe you will be convinced to try them by next off season, maybe not. :-)




So, are you saying that efficiency plays absolutely no role in performance so the cyclist should ignore it? Or, saying cyclists should be looking for training techniques to make them less efficient? Some of you folks seem to think that I am saying that if you train on my product it will make you more efficient and because of this you will then be able to win the TDF. Phooey. What I say is if you train on my product you will be better (perhaps a lot better) than you would be without them.

Fday

Wow, not a single AG or pro triathlete will admit to actually using them? Boy, have I been duped. Thanks for the heads up.

frenchyge

I'm saying that power and efficiency are two factors that are loosely related at best, and it's power that wins races -- not efficiency. As long as a racer is able to carry enough fuel to get him to the finish line, it makes no difference how efficiently he uses it. Unless we're talking about extreme endurance events, efficiency measures which improve power or leave it unchanged are useful, those which reduce it are not.



You'd have to replace a subjective word like 'better' with 'more powerful' in order to get my attention, and have some data to back it up. I look forward to Dr. Cheung's next report.

Fday

Your post highlights my catch 22 situation. If I use more objective words to describe what I expect people might see (40% improvement in POWER) I am criticized for being unrealistic. If I use words like 'better' then I am criticized for not using 'more powerful' and told to have data to back it up, even though I have provided lots of anecdotal data and Dr. Cheung reported a 5% improvement, which earlier in this thread was acknowledged as being huge, but it written off by you as being "expected".

One can look at the science and say "yes, I believe it is possible they could help me substantially even though I may doubt I may see 40% improvement" and take a risk on the product now or say, "it may be possible these could benefit me or others but I will wait until there is more data until I throw my money away" or, say "These are a clearly a bunch of crap and studies are not needed for me to know this so I am going to do everything I can to stop others from wasting their money".

If we all took the same approach none of these threads would ever get more than 10 posts long as there would never be any debate.

frenchyge

Well, to be clear, I think a 5% power improvement from peak fitness would certainly be significant. Dr. Cheung's reported improvement was from his start of pre-season training to mid-season performance, which I'm sure we can agree is a different story completely.

As has been alluded to before, it's not what people *might see* that interests me, it's what people *like me* *have seen* that I'm most concerned with. The catch 22 can only be resolved by having the complete picture.

SolarEnergy

Mr. Day

In december edition of Inside Triathlon, you advertisment page states that a study done in 2003 demonstrated a statistically significant 10% increase in cycling efficiency in trained cyclists over standard training after only 6 weeks training on the PowerCranks.

Could you comment?

Fday

That is the Luttrell study I have referenced in this thread before. The study took two groups of experienced cyclists (had to compete in 3 races in last 6 months I believe to qualify), measured their VO2 max, then measured their efficiency during an hour ride at 69% VO2max. They then trained similarly except one group was on PC's an hour 3 x per week. 6 weeks later the one hour efficiency ride was done again at the same power as before. Gross efficiency of the PowerCranks group increased from about 20 to 22%. To put this in real world terms, their HR during this ride dropped 15 beats, from about 160 to about 145 at the same power.

jerryz

So.... we are equating a drop in HR with an increase in efficiency? I want to make sure I understand your terminology.

RapDaddyo

I don't know if that's what he's saying, but I can tell you that HR is directly correlated with cadence, holding power constant, at least for me and anybody else I know who has conducted the test. The problem is in making the leap that a drop in HR is somehow a good thing.

jerryz

Or just as importantly RDO that this increase in "efficiency" will allow someone to generate a comparable 22% more power. Which isn't proven. There may be little or no correlation between HR and power output for any number of reasons. But at least I thionk I understand the grifters pitch now. If he is measuring improvement using HR then why bother?

SolarEnergy

Thanks, are the results and protocol published & available online?

Fday

No, they actually measured oxygen consumption, that is how they calculated gross efficiency. The HR drop is something everyone knows. For the same power these riders were 15 bpm less than they were 6 weeks ago.

Fday

The researchers controlled for cadence.