Poor man's Powercranks? (PPC)

Fday

I agree. The improvements we claim are in reasonably "stable" cyclists. We would expect bigger benefits in those who are new and also seeing huge training effect benefits also.

How does one "know what the factors are for effective pedaling"? Anyone who hangs out here thinks it is all about "just pushing harder". Technique doesn't matter according to the gurus. Even if it does, what does "pedaling in circles" or "linear style" or any other descriptive term really mean and how does one learn these styles if they don't really know what they are and don't know what they are really doing now.

"just get a proper study done". what a simple statement. It has been difficult enought just to get some studies done lasting 6 weeks that show there is a benefit, let alone a study that would last 9 months to prove the 40% claim.

A 40% increase in max power isn't necessarily going to smash any record if the aerodynamics and endurance are not there also. Most of you middle of the road masters don't quite have world class aerodynamics nor world class endurance. In fact, the fact aerodynamics matters is another thing that can be actually drawn from the oft cited Coyle study. Not only did the faster time-trialists have more years of aerobic training base (duh!), they were also much faster than the power differences between the two groups would suggest meaning they had to have better aerodynamics. Experience and attention to details make a difference.

If you believe pedaling technique matters then you should ask yourself what is the best way to improve or learn proper technique. A few minutes a day or week doing ILT's or using a device that ensures every stroke of every ride is done properly? Or, something else. You tell me.

doctorSpoc

you know i think his sales would probably either remain the same or slightly improve because many people look at that 40% figure and say WTF!! Impossible and just dismiss it out of hand. but with a reasonable number and a study that meets the criteria of the sceptics... they know exactly what they are getting and 5% is a pretty impressive gain just by slapping on some crank arms... you should get an industrial designer to improve the styling a bit... but look at what people spend on wheels and aero bars and helmets for smaller gains?

ric_stern/RST

You make this up as you go along. We've been discussing this for years (the ~40% increase in sustainable power) and now you say it's nothing to do with sustainable power. Nonetheless, a 40% increase in power in a Conconi test and you'd still get a huge increase in sustainable power as your man suggested.

On the other hand it's easier to increase power at a lower intensity, rather than a higher intensity, which obviously runs counter to your point.

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

Fday

Ric, I don't make anything up. My 40% power increase claim has always been based upon Conconi max power test results. Similar to the kinds of tests run by cycling researchers. And, while it may be easier to increase power at lower intensities it is not easier to increase power for 1, 2, 4, or 6 hours at any intensity as this requires developing endurance at this new power, which requires hours and hours of base at these new powers. This will probably come but it will come very slowly, faster for 1 hour, slower for 6.

doctorSpoc

I mentioned some of factors in my post, but i agree that a product that would automatically force a more effective style would be very useful
I hear you.. it must be incredibly hard... personally i'm not going to devote 6 weeks much less 6 months of my life to participate in your study.. where do you get your subjects? that why i take most of the studies that are quoted on this board with a grain of salt.. many of the adapations take longer than are reasonable for a study.. and just don't hold constant what needs to be held constant in order to get decent results... garbage in garbage out
i understand this.. forgetting about the actual resulting time....i'm not going to achieve the power given proper aerodynamics etc in necesary to do so... i'm only talkinga about the power
this is like the 3rd time i'm saying it... that if your product works even at 5% it's a valuable product, people spend more for less improvement

Fday

Then, let me ask you this as you seem to have a reasonable middle of the road viewpoint here. In view of Joaco21's posted improvement, why on earth is it so hard to get anyone here to admit that it might be even possible that these might be worth the price or effort?

Everyone seems locked into the "impossible" 40% number, yet it is in the same order of magnitude reported by Joaco21 and many others but I am seen as a charlatan for simply telling potential customers what current customers report, because it hasn't been proven true. "Proving" (to a scientific certainty) our "claims" true is an essentially impossible task at this point in time.

ric_stern/RST

last i heard, if i blood dope or take rH-Epo my fitness increases straight away and i don't have to spend hours and hours doing base at these new powers (whatever that means). but don't you have to spend hours of doing base at the new powers as you train with the cranks?

Not that any researcher worth their salt would do a Conconi test.

Lastly, i'm not suggesting anyone take rH-Epo, blood dope or do anything else illegal.

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

Fday

Actually, if you blood dope, at least with epo, your "fitness" doesn't change, only your apparent fitness changes because you have improved your ability to deliver oxygen to your cells without improving your cells, capillaries, or cardiovascular system at all. Bring the HCT back to "normal" and fitness will be unchanged. The same does not necessarily apply to doping with growth hormone, etc. where the changes hang around.

If hematocrit remains stable (the non-doping state), then increasing oxygen delivery and utilization takes a lot of hard work and, with equal "genetics", difference in "fitness" comes only from differences in "hard work".

ric_stern/RST

last i checked taking epo causes a ~10% in fitness... but then again i'm not sure what the difference between "fitness" and apparent fitness are?

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

Fday

Seems sraight forward to me. "fitness" is what you deserve from all your hard work. "apparent fitness" is what you have. Sometimes they are the same, sometimes they are not.

doctorSpoc

I'll be very straight forward... Joaco21's claims are not reasonable... they seem to be complete BS... i simply don't believe him... as Judge Milian say "i wouldn't believe him if his tongue came notarized..." extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and all that. it's simple a numbers game. from where i'm sitting the probability that your or your customer's 40% claim is true is extremely low in my estimation so i am very comfortable in going about my business believing it is not true... probability that an improvement on the order of 5% is reasonable and i am comfortable believing that there is a chance that, that sort of improvement may be possible.. this is all in the face of no terribly convincing or conclusive evidence either way (at least for a claim as high as 40%)

Fday

All I can say is, WOW! I take back what I said about your having a reasonable middle of the road view. Why would you think he would make up numbers to present here? Do you think I put him up to that post? I can assure you I didn't as I don't even know who he is. I continue to be amazed at how closed minded most people are as to even the potential for improvement, let alone, what can actually be achieved now. You seemed to understand the large number of areas in which cycling improvement can be achieved. However, you seem to have completely underestimated the potential of each of these areas, either alone or together.

Felt_Rider

Like others probably lurking about watching the discussion I may be getting lost or missing some information so I need some help catching up here.

I am only seeing one person named Joaco21 being listed as a person that has claimed positive results. Is this the only one in reference or are there more individuals making the same claim?


On a side note my specialty to some degree is in hormone manipulation and though the comment on fitness vs. apparent fitness seems to be a wise statement I am not quite sure I agree with that comment. Perhaps the statement wasn't written as clearly as it could have been so I will avoid the conversation to keep on topic.

doctorSpoc

kinda tougue-in-cheek but the fact remains that i don't believe that an improvement on the order of 25-40% came directly from the use of power cranks... but, could be a straight up lie, could be an honest mistake, could be increase motivation and better training (shiny new part do that sometimes), could be the correcting of an undiagnosed nutritional deficiency... don't know?