Longer crankarms

Quoted message said:

I hate to break this to you, but the USOC lab in CS has
been doing this kind of thing for years...about all that
has been learned as a result is that the Conconi test
(proposed/developed/popularized by somebody with a
background very similar to Ferrari's or Testa's) is
total [censored].

Well I guess some of the coaches in NE haven't gotten wind
of this yet! ;~`)

On 03/13/2004 08:30 AM, in article
[email hidden], "Kraig Willett"

Quoted message said:

warren said:

andy coggan said:

I hate to break this to you, but the USOC lab in CS has
been doing this kind of thing for years...about all that
has been learned as a result is that the Conconi test
(proposed/developed/popularized by somebody with a
background very similar to Ferrari's or Testa's) is
total [censored].

Quoted message said:

I hate to break this to you but Max doesn't use the
Conconi test except as a slightly helpful piece of
information along with several other more meaningful
tests and data points.

So, Max (who is this "Max", anyway?) uses the Conconi test
or doesn't use it?

Max Testa

Quoted message said:

Max wouldn't be conducting extraneous tests to just pad
the bill a bit, would he?

Quoted message said:

But speaking of useful data, I was back at the lab today
and Max showed me the compilation report of data recorded
during many, many lactate tests (they do about 50 per
month) and they had categorized the results (power vs.
lactate measurements of 2mMol and 4mMol) based on the
racing category of the riders being tested. Sound
familiar?

Pony up the data/results/methodology, Warren.

Until then, I have to keep asking myself - "what is
Warren's motivation for his obtuse commentary?".

====================
Kraig Willett www.biketechreview.com
====================

--

--
Steven L. Sheffield stevens at veloworks dot com veloworks
at worldnet dot ay tea tee dot net bellum pax est libertas
servitus est ignoratio vis est ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee
sea aye tee why you ti ay aitch aitch tee tea pea colon [for
word] slash [four ward] slash double-you double-yew double-
ewe dot veloworks dot com [four word] slash

I go to great lengths to avoid name dropping, but I do know
Max Testa pretty well, and in fact, I just spoke to him 3
days ago, so I have a good idea of what research he's doing
right now at Davis. While I think its inappropriate to
discuss specifics, I will say that the study is applied and
is "out of pocket". Specifically, Max is technically not
part of any department at Davis and therefore can't get any
money to the work; they can't even test during the weekly
clinic hours. They (everyone involved with the study) work
after hours and on the weekends and pay for the supplies
themselves. So yes, Max is aware of research costs. I doubt,
however, Ferrari is, because if he was he wouldn't have made
such a stupid comment.

There are a lot of studies many of us scientists would love
to do, but they're not realistic to do because of time and
money constraints. For those of you not familiar with the
field of exercise physiology, most of the money is in health
related areas, like heart disease prevention, not in
performance. Even in an Olympic year there's very little
money. Now may be Ferrari can do all sorts of little
projects and this and that, but it ain't research because
its not peer reviewed. None of us have any idea what his
methods were, or his sample sizes. I have plenty of data on
clients, and even more on myself, and yes that influences my
coaching methodology, but I can't publish it because the
"project" wasn't cleared with a Human Subject's board and
the clients didn't agree to it. I'm sure I could wrangle
this, but without some kind of formal backing, its hard to
get it published.

BTW: I contacted Ferrari about his blurb, but I guess he's
been too busy doing his research to get back to me.

CH

Kraig Willett <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

warren said:

andy coggan wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I hate to break this to you, but the USOC lab in CS has
been doing this kind of thing for years...about all
that has been learned as a result is that the Conconi
test (proposed/developed/popularized by somebody with a
background very similar to Ferrari's or Testa's) is
total [censored].

Quoted message said:

I hate to break this to you but Max doesn't use the
Conconi test except as a slightly helpful piece of
information along with several other more meaningful
tests and data points.

So, Max (who is this "Max", anyway?) uses the Conconi test
or doesn't use it?

Max wouldn't be conducting extraneous tests to just pad
the bill a bit, would he?

Quoted message said:

But speaking of useful data, I was back at the lab today
and Max showed me the compilation report of data recorded
during many, many lactate tests (they do about 50 per
month) and they had categorized the results (power vs.
lactate measurements of 2mMol and 4mMol) based on the
racing category of the riders being tested. Sound
familiar?

Pony up the data/results/methodology, Warren.

Until then, I have to keep asking myself - "what is
Warren's motivation for his obtuse commentary?".

====================
Kraig Willett www.biketechreview.com
====================

--

In article <[email hidden]>, chris

Quoted message said:

I doubt, however, Ferrari is (familiar with research
constraints), because if he was he wouldn't have made such
a stupid comment.

I don't think his comment was stupid or ignorant. I think it
was simply a mean little swipe. That's why I called it a
"little needle"-to put it in terms he's very familiar with.

Quoted message said:

BTW: I contacted Ferrari about his blurb, but I guess he's
been too busy doing his research to get back to me.

He's probably too busy taking calls and emails from CC
asking, "So what do you think? What should we do?"

-WG

Did anyone notice how Carmichael seemed to be distancing
himself from Lance last year when Lance was in the dumps?
"Uh, you know 5 in a row is tough, Lance has peaked, we just
can't predict, there are a lot more guys who can win, he
didn't drink enough..."

A few days later it was, "Lance is a champion, I know he's
the best, he's shown it, he'll with that TT..."

Keep up the good work, Chris, but don't put the life jacket
on too soon this year!

CH

Quoted message said:

He's probably too busy taking calls and emails from CC
asking, "So what do you think? What should we do?"

-WG

"chris" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I hate to break this to you, but the USOC lab in CS has
been doing this

kind

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of thing for years...about all that has been learned as
a result is that

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Conconi test (proposed/developed/popularized by somebody
with a

background

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

very similar to Ferrari's or Testa's) is total [censored].

Well I guess some of the coaches in NE haven't gotten wind
of this yet!

;~`)

Are you referring to Cycle-Smart? I thought that they had
given up on that approach.

Andy Coggan

"chris" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Carmichael likes to note all sorts of data he's seen in
the lab, but he won't let anyone else look at it; top
secret!

Not to pick on Carmichael in particular, but what's funny to
me is how people just eat this stuff up, when many times it
is not something new at all. Take, for example, the whole
notion that by pedaling faster you reduce recruitment of
fast twitch fibers: Carmichael mentions it, and people treat
it like some new discovery, when in fact the issue has been
studied by exercise physiologists for nearly three decades
(with somewhat equivocal results, I might add).

Andy Coggan

"warren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

speaking of useful data, I was back at the lab today and
Max showed me the compilation report of data recorded
during many, many lactate tests (they do about 50 per
month) and they had categorized the results (power vs.
lactate measurements of 2mMol and 4mMol) based on the
racing category of the riders being tested. Sound
familiar? Except they weren't just guessing or trying to
assign a racing category based on an opinion based
derived from the results of the best in the world. They
have actual data from actual racers in those categories.

That's great - with that information he can predict their 20
min and, with somewhat less accuracy, their 5 min power. Now
he just needs to study a bunch of match sprinters and kilo
riders to get a handle on what constitutes average vs. good
vs. excellent vs. world class 5 s and 1 min power, and do it
all over again for women, and he'll have something
comparable to the "power profiling" tables that I put
together in one afternoon. Sometimes "quick and dirty" is
the best way to go.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There's a saying in science: the project isn't complete
until the data

are

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

submitted for publication. Ergo, since Ferrari doesn't
publish, he

doesn't

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

do research in the usual sense.

Let's not confuse "the usual sense" with the useful sense.

Data that aren't shared aren't very useful.

Andy Coggan

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Andy Coggan

Quoted message said:

Let's not confuse "the usual sense" with the useful sense.

Data that aren't shared aren't very useful.

Andy Coggan

The academic stench is overwhelming in here. "publish, publish, publish, wah wah wah."

Do you want funding to make the fastest people, faster; or the not-so-fast, faster; or the not-so-fit, fitter? It's a good thing that there isn't public funding readily available for the first two cases. Frivolous. Training fatty masters and cat 3 schmoes isn't going to do the world any good. And the third case, the one that probably does see a fair amount of public funding, produces regurgitated 3times a week, 20 minutes a day kind of results...and do we really need a warming over of that concept?

Funding for making the fasest people faster is limited to national team interests, and beyond that, maybe the military.

The guys that are doing the job for the pros in Europe have no interest in making their data useful to you or me. And they sure aren't doing it for the laudation or criticism of "the academic community".

Helping riders win races is what matters, and if they are using drugs to do that, well that's even more reason not to publish.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Andy Coggan said:

"warren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

speaking of useful data, I was back at the lab today
and Max showed me the compilation report of data
recorded during many, many lactate tests (they do about
50 per month) and they had categorized the results
(power vs. lactate measurements of 2mMol and 4mMol)
based on the racing category of the riders being
tested. Sound familiar? Except they weren't just
guessing or trying to assign a racing category based on
an opinion based derived from the results of the best
in the world. They have actual data from actual racers
in those categories.

That's great - with that information he can predict
their 20 min and, with somewhat less accuracy, their 5
min power.

Heh, he can predict far more than that with that data.

-WG

"jim gravity" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Andy Coggan said:

Quoted message said:

Let's not confuse "the usual sense" with the useful
sense.

Data that aren't shared aren't very useful. Andy
Coggan

The academic stench is overwhelming in here. "publish,
publish, publish, wah wah wah."

Do you want funding to make the fastest people, faster; or
the not-so- fast, faster; or the not-so-fit, fitter? It's
a good thing that there isn't public funding readily
available for the first two cases. Frivolous. Training
fatty masters and cat 3 schmoes isn't going to do the
world any good.

I didn't call for public funding of performance research
(and in fact personally don't believe that tax money should
really be spent that way). Like Chris, I merely pointed out
*why* what Ferrari calls for isn't possible.

Quoted message said:

And the third case, the one that probably does see a fair
amount of public funding, produces regurgitated 3times a
week, 20 minutes a day kind of results...and do we really
need a warming over of that concept?

Actually, the programs recommended for making "the not-so-
fit, fitter" have changed considerably from what you seem to
be familiar with, in part due to publically-funded research.

Quoted message said:

Funding for making the fasest people faster is limited to
national team interests, and beyond that, maybe the
military.

Agreed. That's why sports-crazy countries like Australia are
where the best such research is done, at least when it comes
to "amateur" sports (i.e., those without a large
professional side, e.g., swimming).

Quoted message said:

The guys that are doing the job for the pros in Europe
have no interest in making their data useful to you or me.
And they sure aren't doing it for the laudation or
criticism of "the academic community". Helping riders win
races is what matters, and if they are using drugs to do
that, well that's even more reason not to publish.

Yet, ironically, people like Ferrari seem to think that
people like me should be performing and publishing research
that serves *their* needs. Me, I say what's good for the
goose is good for the gander: if people like Ferrari want to
see more data published that has direct application, then
they need to publish their own.

Andy Coggan

"warren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Andy Coggan said:

"warren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

speaking of useful data, I was back at the lab today
and Max showed me the compilation report of data
recorded during many, many lactate tests (they do
about 50 per month) and they had categorized the

results

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(power vs. lactate measurements of 2mMol and 4mMol)
based on the

racing

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

category of the riders being tested. Sound familiar?
Except they weren't just guessing or trying to assign
a racing category based on

an

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

opinion based derived from the results of the best in
the world. They have actual data from actual racers in
those categories.

That's great - with that information he can predict
their 20 min and,

with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

somewhat less accuracy, their 5 min power.

Heh, he can predict far more than that with that data.

So could anyone with basic knowledge of exercise physiology
and an understanding of statistics. But as the (my) saying
goes, "the best predictor of performance is performance
itself." So, why jack around measuring lactate levels, when
you can measure performance power directly?

Andy Coggan

Ah yes, BUT those studies never had Lance as a poster child.
Carmichael is, if nothing else, very lucky, but also very
astute to capitalize on his luck. For that he deserves
praise. Others have come and gone with the Champions they
built, but Carmichael revolutionized coaching to the masses;
for better or for worse.

However, a close look at nearly everything Carmichael
endorses has been used for decades; aerobic base training,
the need to add speed work to you early season training, and
my favorite, field testing. Someone forgot to tell him this
has been used "forever", yet now everyone needs to do it.

The real question is how long will it take for him to cash
out after Lance retires? Can he leave the limelight behind?
Will he make any more "advancements" in training and
coaching, or will he push the same old same old?

CH

"Andy Coggan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news-
:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"chris" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Carmichael likes to note all sorts of data he's seen in
the lab, but he won't let anyone else look at it; top
secret!

Not to pick on Carmichael in particular, but what's funny
to me is how people just eat this stuff up, when many
times it is not something new at all. Take, for example,
the whole notion that by pedaling faster you reduce
recruitment of fast twitch fibers: Carmichael mentions it,
and people treat it like some new discovery, when in fact
the issue has been studied by exercise physiologists for
nearly three decades (with somewhat equivocal results, I
might add).

Andy Coggan

In article <[email hidden]>, chris

Quoted message said:

Ah yes, BUT those studies never had Lance as a poster
child. Carmichael is, if nothing else, very lucky, but
also very astute to capitalize on his luck. For that he
deserves praise. Others have come and gone with the
Champions they built, but Carmichael revolutionized
coaching to the masses; for better or for worse.

However, a close look at nearly everything Carmichael
endorses has been used for decades; aerobic base
training, the need to add speed work to you early season
training, and my favorite, field testing. Someone forgot
to tell him this has been used "forever", yet now
everyone needs to do it.

The real question is how long will it take for him to cash
out after Lance retires? Can he leave the limelight
behind? Will he make any more "advancements" in training
and coaching, or will he push the same old same old?

A sound marketing strategy and good consultants can carry
him far beyond what he actually knows about training-even
without the help of his friend Lance.

-WG

In article <[email hidden]>, Andy

Coggan said:

"warren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]-

rthlink.net said:

"warren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
> speaking of useful data, I was back at the lab
> today and Max showed me the compilation report of
> data recorded during many, many lactate tests (they
> do about 50 per month) and they had categorized the

results

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> (power vs. lactate measurements of 2mMol and 4mMol)
> based on the

racing

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> category of the riders being tested. Sound familiar?
> Except they weren't just guessing or trying to
> assign a racing category based on

an

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> opinion based derived from the results of the best
> in the world. They have actual data from actual
> racers in those categories.

That's great - with that information he can predict
their 20 min and,

with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

somewhat less accuracy, their 5 min power.

Heh, he can predict far more than that with that data.

So could anyone with basic knowledge of exercise
physiology and an understanding of statistics. But as the
(my) saying goes, "the best predictor of performance is
performance itself." So, why jack around measuring lactate
levels, when you can measure performance power directly?

Measuring lactate allows for objective, useful measurements
not obtainable with 5 minute, 20-minute, etc., road tests.
But then you (should) already know this.

-WG

"warren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Andy Coggan said:

"warren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden].-
earthlink.net>, Andy Coggan <[email hidden]>
wrote:

> "warren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> "]news:[email hidden]...
> > speaking of useful data, I was back at the lab
> > today and Max

showed

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > me the compilation report of data recorded during
> > many, many

lactate

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > tests (they do about 50 per month) and they had
> > categorized the

results

Quoted message said:

> > (power vs. lactate measurements of 2mMol and
> > 4mMol) based on the

racing

Quoted message said:

> > category of the riders being tested. Sound
> > familiar? Except they weren't just guessing or
> > trying to assign a racing category based

on

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

an

Quoted message said:

> > opinion based derived from the results of the best
> > in the world.

They

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > have actual data from actual racers in those
> > categories.
>
> That's great - with that information he can predict
> their 20 min

and,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

with

Quoted message said:

> somewhat less accuracy, their 5 min power.

Heh, he can predict far more than that with that data.

So could anyone with basic knowledge of exercise
physiology and an understanding of statistics. But as
the (my) saying goes, "the best predictor of performance
is performance itself." So, why jack around measuring
lactate levels, when you can measure performance power

directly?

Quoted message said:

Measuring lactate allows for objective, useful
measurements not obtainable with 5 minute, 20-minute,
etc., road tests. But then you (should) already know this.

There is more variability involved in measuring power at
fixed blood lactate concentrations (e.g., 2 or 4 mmol/L)
than there is in measuring performance power (e.g., 5 or 20
min)...but I don't expect you to know this.

Andy Coggan

"Jiyang Chen" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Are there any evidence that longer crankarms are more
efficient?

My earlier post seems to have been lost in the peripheral
discussion, so I'll try again to answer the original
question. My colleagues and I have done several studies in
which we used crank length as our intervention. Abstracts
for the two most applicable to cyclists are below. The first
one, by McDaniel et al., showed that there was no effect of
crank length (145, 170, 195mm) on efficiency, suggesting
that crank length will not help or hinder endurance
performance. The second one shows that maximal sprinting
power is not altered by crank lengths of 145-195mm but that
120 and 220mm cranks compromise power by a few percent.
Bottom line, ride the length you like to ride and be
confident that you are not hurting your power. Or the flip
side, feel free to change cranks anytime, it won't hurt your
performance but it won't help either.

McDaniel J. J.L. Durstine, G.A. Hand, and J.C. Martin.
Determinants of the metabolic cost of submaximal cycling.
Journal of Applied Physiology, 93: 823-828, 2002. The
metabolic cost of producing submaximal cycling power has
been reported to vary with pedaling rate. Pedaling rate,
however, governs two physiological phenomena known to
influence metabolic cost and efficiency: muscle shortening
velocity and the frequency of muscle activation and
relaxation. The purpose of this investigation was to
determine the relative influence of those two phenomena on
metabolic cost during submaximal cycling. Nine trained male
cyclists performed submaximal cycling at power outputs
intended to elicit 30, 60, and 90% of their individual
lactate threshold at four pedaling rates (40, 60, 80, 100
rpm) with three different crank lengths (145, 170, and 195
mm). The combination of four pedaling rates and three crank
lengths produced 12 pedal speeds ranging from 0.61 to 2.04
m/s. Metabolic cost was determined by indirect calorimetery,
and power output and pedaling rate were recorded. A
stepwise multiple linear regression procedure selected
mechanical power output, pedal speed, and pedal speed
squared as the main determinants of metabolic cost
(R(2) = 0.99 +/- 0.01). Neither pedaling rate nor crank
length significantly contributed to the regression
model. The cost of unloaded cycling and delta
efficiency were 150 metabolic watts and 24.7%,
respectively, when data from all crank lengths and
pedal speeds were included in a regression. Those
values increased with increasing pedal speed and ranged
from a low of 73 +/- 7 metabolic watts and 22.1 +/-
0.3% (145-mm cranks, 40 rpm) to a high of 297 +/- 23
metabolic watts and 26.6 +/- 0.7% (195-mm cranks, 100
rpm). These results suggest that mechanical power
output and pedal speed, a marker for muscle shortening
velocity, are the main determinants of metabolic cost
during submaximal cycling, whereas pedaling rate (i.e.,
activation-relaxation rate) does not significantly
contribute to metabolic cost.

Martin, J.C. and W.W. Spirduso. Determinants of maximal
cycling power: Crank length, pedaling rate, and pedal speed.
European Journal of Applied Physiology 84 (5): 413-418,
2001. The purpose of this investigation was to determine the
effects of cycle crank length on maximum cycling power,
optimal pedaling rate, and optimal pedal speed, and to
determine the optimal crank length to leg length ratio for
maximal power production. Trained cyclists (n = 16)
performed maximal inertial load cycle ergometry using crank
lengths of 120, 145, 170, 195, and 220 mm. Maximum power
ranged from a low of 1149 (20) W for the 220-mm cranks to a
high of 1194 (21) W for the 145-mm cranks. Power produced
with the 145- and 170-mm cranks was significantly (P < 0.05)
greater than that produced with the 120- and 220-mm cranks.
The optimal pedaling rate decreased significantly with
increasing crank length, from 136 rpm for the 120-mm cranks
to 110 rpm for the 220-mm cranks. Conversely, optimal pedal
speed increased significantly with increasing crank length,
from 1.71 m/s for the 120-mm cranks to 2.53 m/s for the 220-
mm cranks. The crank length to leg length and crank length
to tibia length ratios accounted for 20.5% and 21.1% of the
variability in maximum power, respectively. The optimal
crank length was 20% of leg length or 41% of tibia length.
These data suggest that pedal speed (which constrains muscle
shortening velocity) and pedaling rate (which affects muscle
excitation state) exert distinct effects that influence
muscular power during cycling. Even though maximum cycling
power was significantly affected by crank length, use of the
standard 170-mm length cranks should not substantially
compromise maximum power in most adults.

Cheers,

Jim

In article <[email hidden]>,

Andy Coggan said:

"warren" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Measuring lactate allows for objective, useful
measurements not obtainable with 5 minute, 20-
minute, etc., road tests. But then you (should)
already know this.

There is more variability involved in measuring power at
fixed blood lactate concentrations (e.g., 2 or 4 mmol/L)
than there is in measuring performance power (e.g., 5 or
20 min)...but I don't expect you to know this.

I guess if you're not an expert at conducting and
interpreting the tests you would tend to think that way.
Your personal bias restricts your ability to learn. Ask a
good coach for advice. They can help you learn from tests
that provide information not found in your 1, 5, 10, 20,
40, 60 minute road tests and in a more objective and
repeatable manner.

What is my power output at 1m/Mol? 1 m/Mol vs. 2 m/Mol? 2
vs. 4? Is it changing? How much? What is the shape of the
curve between 1 and 2, 2 and 3, 3 and 4, 4 and 5,? How long
can I sustain power at 4, 5, 6+? How can I use all of this
information to guide my training?

-WG

In article <[email hidden]>, Jim Martin

Quoted message said:

"Jiyang Chen" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Are there any evidence that longer crankarms are more
efficient?

My earlier post seems to have been lost in the peripheral
discussion, so I'll try again to answer the original
question. My colleagues and I have done several studies in
which we used crank length as our intervention. Abstracts
for the two most applicable to cyclists are below. The
first one, by McDaniel et al., showed that there was no
effect of crank length (145, 170, 195mm) on efficiency,
suggesting that crank length will not help or hinder
endurance performance. The second one shows that maximal
sprinting power is not altered by crank lengths of 145-
195mm but that 120 and 220mm cranks compromise power by a
few percent. Bottom line, ride the length you like to ride
and be confident that you are not hurting your power. Or
the flip side, feel free to change cranks anytime, it
won't hurt your performance but it won't help either.

Was any of the testing conducted while the rider was rocking
the bike, out of the saddle at high power (eg. 1000+ watts),
and at medium power (eg. 400+ watts) ? Were the riders given
a week or two to acclimate to each new crankarm length and
each new pedaling cadence? Were there any repeated
accelerations during the testing like that found in racing?

-WG

"warren" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Was any of the testing conducted while the rider was
rocking the bike, out of the saddle

No, all seated.

Quoted message said:

at high power (eg. 1000+ watts),

All of the subjects in the maximal power study produced well
over 1000 watts.

Quoted message said:

and at medium power (eg. 400+ watts) ?

No, all data was either maximum muscular power or
submaximal, below lactate threshold, power.

Quoted message said:

Were the riders given a week or two to acclimate to each
new crankarm

length and each new pedaling cadence?

Only a day of practice on each length. In my opinion, that
is one of the strenghts of the study with regard to cycling:
Even when the cranks are nearly new to the rider they still
do not alter power or efficiency.

Quoted message said:

Were there any repeated accelerations during the testing
like that found in

racing?

Nope. We were not trying to evaluate fatigue but that is a
topic for future study in my lab. If is possible that one
crank length may be better than another for certain
fatiguing situations but no one has looked at that yet.

Cheers,

Jim