Poor man's Powercranks? (PPC)

Fday

Every study has flaws and weaknesses, especially if it involves human subjects. The fact that a study has flaws does not necessarily make it invalid. Take out of it what you can. Some may take more than others. That is your (and my) choice.

From one of your cites: "Fiber distribution remains unchanged during the initial weeks of inactivity, but oxidative fibers may decrease in endurance athletes and increase in strength-trained athletes within 8 wk of training stoppage. Muscle fiber cross-sectional area declines rapidly in strength and sprint athletes, and in recently endurance-trained subjects, whereas it may increase slightly in endurance athletes. Force production declines slowly and in relation to decreased EMG activity."

I guess peoples definition of "horribly detrained" can vary.

Frank

Fday

I was simply told by a researcher in Australia that he had an excellent reputation for doing good work. It doesn't matter. His work in this instance will either stand or fall on its own. Having published a lot or being cited a lot is not a very powerful tool for measuring quality of subsequent papers, in the academic publish or perish atmosphere.

Frank

acoggan

Undoubtly someone whose expertise lies in thermal physiology, because it's high unlikely they would have heard of Dr. Cheung otherwise (I know that I would not be aware of him if I weren't a cyclist).



On the contrary, it matters a fair bit, because 1) until the actual study is published, all we really have are tidbits of information to go by (including who performed the study), and 2) you keep touting the research as being performed by some high-powered scientists (which it clearly was not).



Indeed, that is the beauty of the scientific process (vs., say, overly-stated claims made on the web).



Did you really just say that?

Fday

Might I remind you Dr. Coggan that you just recently referred to two studies to make your point. One that was PRESENTED at the ACSM, a similar situation as the Dixon study but for which not even an abstract was given nor available to anyone, apparently, to anyone who was not at the meeting and another which you stated is IN PRESS. Very useful to make your point.

Thanks for keeping me honest. Let the discussion of the merits of the various articles as they relate to PowerCranks, or anything else, begin.

Frank

Piotr

You mean you didn't get all that knowledge from Wikipedia?!!

__________________
blog

acoggan

The difference being, of course, that I am perfectly happy to discuss the limitations of such studies based on what is known about them, as opposed to blowing off such criticism with comments such as "ask the authors".

Fday

No you are not. If you are willing "to discuss the limitations of such studies", let's discuss the Coyle study that is so widely referred to as "proving" that "just pushing harder" is superior to "pedaling in circles".

We can start with these items for discussion.

First, do you believe that study showed such?

Second, if so, can you point me to the exact spot where Coyle draws that conclusion or where it is otherwise shown in the paper.

Third, If you don't believe that but believe it makes another point about one pedaling style being superior to another could you tell us what you think it says and where it says it.

Fourth, do you see any weaknesses in the paper and, if so, what are they?

Frank

Fday

Yes. At least in medicine a lot of well published authors put out a lot of crap. Utter crap. They even reference themselves in subsequent papers. I wrote a letter to the editor "exposing" one "well-respected" author where about 50% of the references were to articles he authored and and others were to articles over 100 years old plus he completely ignored mainstream alternative points of view.

I suspect the same occurs in all academic fields.

Frank

Fday

I have never referred to Dr. Cheung as "high-powered", simply as well-respected. Do you have any information to the contrary regarding his academic reputation?

Frank

acoggan

No. However, it does provide evidence (of a cross-sectional nature) that there is no advantage to "pedaling in circles".



I don't know if he does. However, since Ed trained me to think for myself , I don't really care what he says about the data: I know what conclusions I draw from it.



Again, I don't care what's written in the text, but what the data actually show, which is that 1) some cyclists already pedal in the manner you consider superior, but 2) this does not result in their being either more efficient or more powerful (over an hour).



In this context, the primary one is that it used a cross-sectional vs. an interventional design. Nonetheless, the data are consistent with both what you'd expect based on an understanding of muscle physiology and of the biomechanics of cycling, as well as with subsequent interventional studies (e.g., Jim Martin's).

acoggan

As I said before, all I know is that he doesn't publish a lot or get cited a lot.

acoggan

There is absolutely nothing wrong, per se, with referencing yourself or with referencing classic studies.

Fday

Thanks for agreeing that it doesn't provide proof of anything. While it could support the argument that there is no advantage to pedaling in circles (it would support a study that was well designed for this that came to this conclusion, which, of course, doesn't exist) since it found little advantage in this group of cyclists/ There were so few controls in this regard and so many other rational explanations for the findings that absolutely no conclusions can rationally be drawn regarding this. Would you agree with this?


And your conclusions are? And the data that supports those conclusions?


I saw no data that suggests that "some cyclists already pedal in the manner (I) consider superior", that is complete unweighting for the entirety of the ride. Even if it were true, is there biopsey data to confirm that efficiency differences (or sameness) are not modified by muscle fibre type?



How is it consistent with what I would expect "based upon an understanding of muscle physiology and the biomechanics of cycling". You (and Coyle) are the ones who think that the only way to change cycling efficiency is to change muscle fibre type (at least that is what Coyle stated in his paper on Lance's efficiency improvements over time and you have defended that) but there is no control here regarding muscle fibre type of the subjects, so how can one interpret the results that pedaling patterns don't matter?

Coyle never came to the conclusion that this study shows what everyone seems to think it does. What did he miss in the data? I suggest nothing because this study cannot demonstrate what everyone thinks it does.

Frank

Frank

Fday

There is when the intention is to simply make a rant look like a scholarly paper. It is all in the context.