Poor man's Powercranks? (PPC)

Monastero

Are you forgetting about Lance?

Fday

Of course you can improve by "mak(ing) better use of a modest amount of workout (actually cooldown) time to work on an area of potential improvement." the only question is "How much?" My guess is not much.

But, the other aspect of this is what else you said. Clearly, if one wants to perform optimally one needs to avoid injury and if one is injured, one needs to do what is necessary to heal. Anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that use of PC's help the athlete to avoid injury (by both balancing the athlete and improving form) and help rehab the injured athlete. Nice thing we offer if you are injured is our 90 day moneyback guarantee. Use them to rehab then send them back if you feel you don't need them anymore. :-)

Of course, regarding preventing injury nothing can be guaranteed just because you train with PC's. Just look at Magnus Backstedt.

Frank

Fday

Sure we do, unless it changes. :-)

Why do you think I would claim that the improvement would be the same for everyone? I, of course, don't. Those who have better form already have less to gain from PC's than the average user. Those who have worse form than average have more to gain.

And, even if we did improve Bettini's VO2 max 30% it wouldn't make much difference in the race results because of the way cycling races are raced. The best rarely get into a breakaway and try to ride away from the peloton to "prove" they are stronger. They ride in the pack, saving energy, and win at the end. Cycling, except for TT, is a tactical sport.

No, it seems you are the one sitting at home making up what you think I say.

I simply put out the figures I believe the data supports. You may think they are unrealistic because you are unable to think outside of the small box you have put your brain into. If the scientific data, when it is published, counters my claims I will change them. So far, the independent data I have seen support them. If you have some other data to suggest my figures are wrong please let me know.

Frank

ric_stern/RST

i'm pretty sure we don't know (i'm prepared to be wrong on this though)



so, what do you claim for pros then?



obviously, you have zero idea how cycle racing works then...



you mean the utter twaddle you came up with the first time *you* used used your Power Cranks when you were on your Cateye and you saw a 40% increase in power. Amazing.



well, i may have a small box for my small brain, but at least i don't live in cloud cuckoo land smoking crack.

How about the fact that no average cyclist (as previously defined by you) has ever made the jump to being world class (with the gain in power you're always talking about) after using your cranks. Surely, some, with all the cranks you've sold have made these increases in power and like it or not Frank, an average racer making those increases in power would have made it to a world level. Wake me up when that happens.

Ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

Fday

No specific claims for pro cyclists other than we will make them better. I have no data to suggest how much better they will be on average however, for most of them, any improvement will be welcome. The feedback we get from most of them is quite positive.

For pro triathletes we tend to see 15-30 minute improvements in IM bike splits (5+ hour to 4:45-4:40 bike splits) and 30 sec per mile IM run improvement within one year on average. There have been 17 pro triathletes who have won their first IM after first training on PowerCranks.

Frank

rmur17

I henceforth promise to avoid trademarked terms in my thread titles ... too much rancor that I'd hoped to avoid on here.

__________________
rmur

Fday

It is not the trademarked name but the independent crank concept that is "controversial". If you had said "alternative to independent cranks" we would have had the exact same "discussion." It just turns out that there is only one brand of independent cranks, hence the "problem" with the name.

Frank

xcmntgeek

On avg. how much of an increase in muscle mass and is thee an increase in O2 consumption assosiated with this? How does the increase in wattage associate with this increased O2 consumption?

Justin

__________________
Just a kid riding his bike, and living his dream

Fday

I am guessing now but based upon some early study results and anecdotal reports we would have to guess that the increase in muscle mass used is substantial since increases in VO2 max are substantial. Dixon reported VO2 max increased 11% in 6 weeks. I am not sure how one would explain increasing VO2max without invoking training more muscle mass aerobically.

Some of the increase in wattage that is seen also comes about from improving efficiency (Luttrell showed an improved efficiency of about 10% also in about 6 weeks). Only when one combines the two, increased efficiency with increased muscle mass, can one can reasonably explain (although these explanations still remain unreasonable for some, many of whom are here) the very large power increases (40% or more in 6-9 months) that many report as these would be exceedingly hard to explain invoking just one mechanism.

Frank

n crowley

Frank, for how long were you using these cranks and are you still using them.
From your own experience and all the reports you have received, can you answer this question, is the power output increase the result of having the ability to use a higher gear or a higher cadence.

acoggan

Please don't try to put words in my mouth.



And the other one is...?



Again, to what study are you referring?

(BTW, when training untrained subjects we've obtained 10% increases in VO2max in just 10 d, and even in highly trained athletes it isn't uncommon for VO2max to flucuate +/-10% throughout the year. Depending on the experimental design, a15% increase in 6 wk therefore isn't necessarily all that impressive.)

Fday

since I invented these many years ago they are all I have ridden. At the time I was not competing, just riding for exercise. As I was trying them out to "see how good they might be" within 3 months I was riding 3 mph faster than I ever did when younger and competing. So, I thought I was on to something. I got myself a Computrainer so I could test myself (a couple of years earlier I was tested on a CT) and tested myself again. My max power (and efficiency) had increased over 35% going from 280 watts to 380 watts.

I then recruited at a local VeloSwap some local "beta" testers to see what would happen with a more controlled testing scenario. Low and behold, those who stuck with it also were seeing on average about a 40% power increase using the same protocol within about 6 to 9 months. Hence, you now know the original source of the wildly denounced 40% power improvement claims.

Anyhow, I did not notice any change in cadence, what I remember doing was pushing much bigger gears and going faster. What we have seen reported from customers is most report lowering their "normal" cadence and pushing bigger gears, although some report they are able to increase their "normal" cadence - not sure if these people are typically pushing bigger gears also or not.

So, the changes people see in cadence or gearing vary but the speed or power improvements (not everyone measures power so we calculate power improvement for those individuals based upon reported speed improvements) are pretty similar (being somewhat less for elites (25% improvement on average perhaps) and somewhat more for "beginners" (a doubling or sometimes even tripling of power)). This means to me we help improve many different aspects of the stroke, helping most to improve the particular weakest link in any given rider.


Does this answer the question?

Frank

acoggan

As much as the body wants to do.



Based on the fact that humans (as well as horses, etc.) demonstrate a remarkable degree of self-optimization during other tasks, it makes sense that they would do so when pedaling* as well.

*A movement pattern so apparently ingrained in our motor control system that even pedaling backwards only changes the firing sequence of one or two muscles.

Fday

Here is the flaw in your argument as I see it.

Running and walking is indeed natural but even then there are substantial variations in peoples styles and some people are natually "faster" than others and analysis seems to show some styles of running are far superior to others. Just because it is natural doesn't mean it is optimum for competitive purposes.

But, pedaling is not "natural". It is somewhat related to walking and running but it is not the same. We must learn how to do it. No one gets on a bike the first time and pedals off without difficulty. Therefore, what "seems" natural in pedaling motion will depend upon how the person learned the motion. Since we essentially all learned to pedal on fixed cranks with platform pedals we all learned to only partially unweight on the upstroke, because that is the only way to pedal that kind of bike with any kind of efficiency since one needs to keep contact with the pedal to be able to quickly apply force on the downstroke once over the top if one has any hope of riding with any speed.

Although one can make the argument that this is the optimum style if one is not attached to the pedals (I actually make that argument), nothing here suggests that this coordination is optimum once one becomes attached to the pedals. What is clear is that once one wants to change it, it is almost impossible because, as you point out, it is "A movement pattern so apparently ingrained in our motor control system that even pedaling backwards only changes the firing sequence of one or two muscles." Would you be making the counter argument if we all learned to pedal a bicycle attached to the pedals and the bike was equipped with independent cranks? I suspect not as it is hard to imagine that teaching someone to keep some back pressure on the upstroke when they are already completely unweighting would provide any benefit. But, that is really what you are arguing. Makes no sense to me.

That is why it takes a product like PowerCranks to change the pattern. A device that forces the user to use a different pattern and allows them to get enough repetitions that the neuromuscular memory can begin to change.

Now that it is possible to actually change the pedaling pattern it is now possible to compare the relative merits of the two styles to see which is superior. Any study that has failed to do such a change and comparison cannot, by definition, know which method is better. I know of only two studies that have made this attempt and both of them have shown the PC method of pedaling to be far superior.


Frank