PowerCranks: Worth the Money?

Here is a two-letter exchange I had on this subject with a buddy of mine who is a very serious (accomplished) amateur cyclist; this comes through in the letters. He lives in France -where they take cycling seriously- and has set up his life with cycling at it's center. He was already exceptionally fit prior to getting PowerCranks. Note: the date of these communications was July of 2003. I will try to get in touch with him again and get the latest news about his experiences with his PowerCranks. I've removed his and my name. Anyway:

Letter #1:

"From: <RacerInFrance>
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 3:21 AM
To: <IMHooker>
Subject: RE: PowerCranks update?

Hello <IMHooker>,

Things are going well enough, I still have a job that allows me to enjoy my family, my house, and my bike. I'm happy with that. I haven't raced since mid-May, initially due to a brief high workload, but since then, I've just been training. Training with no racing is a little dull, but I am no-longer motivated to race for the current team I ride for.

There are only two of us at the National level on our team this year and we've had fun racing together, but ran out of steam as the team isn't behind us. They'd rather have everyone racing at the regional level locally - this limited scope is disappointing.

However, I've made contact with another local team that has plans to grow their national team for next season and would be happy to have me aboard. This has remotivated already for next season. That's how I manage to focus just on training for now. In fact, as you ask about the power cranks (PCs), I've been riding just those since mid-May. I'm focusing on training with the PCs to refine, optimize my leg muscles.

Using PCs, it is initially difficult to maintain any kind of high or even mid-level rpms. I tended to push really big gears for no real speed. Just rolling at 15mph in a 53x15 to start with. After a year of training though, I've noticed a significant improvement in my ability to spin with the PCs.

I'm approaching the leg speed with the bike speed of standard fixed cranks. I can now ride about 1h30 to 2h maintaining good leg speed, spinning a small gear. My goal is to build up the endurance of the new muscle groups that are beginning to get use to working at such rpms. If I can build this up for next year, I'll be flying for sure.

From this, my recommendations for starting with PowerCranks is to start small and build up GRADUALLY. Last year, I was over anxious and didn't head my own recommendation. On the second week of riding with the PCs, I did a 3h30 ride and tore my muscles apart. It took me a month of no action to recover.

I don't know what experience your friend has, but I then set myself to start with 40 minutes rides and gradually built up the time used on the PCs. One should not go beyond the point when they feel their leg muscles getting really sore. Over exertion will work against us.

PCs are amazing. It's really interesting to follow the development and programming of a generally poorly used muscle group.

Hope this helps, good riding,

<RacerInFrance>"

Letter #2:
"... The problem is that I'm on a relatively small team that is happy to stay at the level their at and are not ready to grow into a higher level team. No performances to speak of for out team, except for one young guy who has been winning all kinds of races.

He's just 17 and in his first National level race, he placed 4th. He also won the Junior Championship race for Ile de France; he's got a great looking jersey for it.

I'll look forward to getting on a team with more ambition. I'm not looking to go pro anymore - far too late for me, but racing at the national level is definitely more challenging than last year. The challenge is what makes it fun.

No time trials to speak of. I have noticed that the average speed of my training rides continue to climb. Also, my average heart rate seems to be going down. It's all rather interesting: leg speed up using smaller gears with the PCs seems to result in average speed going up as well as the average heart rate coming down.

Since I haven't been racing, my weekly average hours is a little lower this year than last: 7 hours per week."

I do not speak from personal experience but I can't see how they would help. I think you would just become better at riding with PC's but not necessarily better when not using PC's.

I belong to the school of thought that the up-stroke is not an essential part of the crank cycle and base this on the EMG evidence that shows greater muscle recruitment in the down-stroke muscles when the opposite leg is relaxed compared to when it is pulling up. Also, there was the study that showed elite cyclists did less of an up-stroke than very good cyclists.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by patch70
I do not speak from personal experience but I can't see how they would help. I think you would just become better at riding with PC's but not necessarily better when not using PC's.

I belong to the school of thought that the up-stroke is not an essential part of the crank cycle and base this on the EMG evidence that shows greater muscle recruitment in the down-stroke muscles when the opposite leg is relaxed compared to when it is pulling up. Also, there was the study that showed elite cyclists did less of an up-stroke than very good cyclists.

this is correct. i too can't see the point of these cranks, and the claims for increases in power are frankly ridiculous for anyone other than a completely untrained novice, sedentary person. if the claims were true, i'd go from being an average racer to being able to win the TdF (which seriously isn't likely!).

ric

I posted excerpts of my buddy's e-mails as I've used PC's only intermittantly over the past few years due to too much real world work.

I can't explain why PC's made sense to me (I've used them off and on for a couple of years), but I can say that -having experienced them- they quickly caused me to develop:
- much more left/right balance; greatly strengthening my left side
- much more hamstring strength; very useful strength for cycling

Feel free to hit me with an e-mail or post every month or so and I'll let you know how my latest experiences are working out... I just got the model 4's and am going to see how far I can take it this summer.
_______________________________________

Beyond that...

I'm of the school that thinking myself as being 'of the school of [censored]' and spending a lot of time thinking 'I can't see why ZZZ' is what most everyone has done throughout history. Some examples:

(1) Until the mid-1800's every man, woman and child in Europe was certain that the fastest way to swim was to do breast stroke. It was not until Europeans saw American Indians swimming what we now call "crawl" that they adopted this faster way of swimming.

<within my lifetime>:
(2) [censored] Fosbury turned his back on everything that was known about the high jump and changed the way it's been done ever since.

(3) David Berkoff so improved upon the backstroke that FINA passed rules against his technique.

(4) Greg LeMond used aerobars in the 1989 TdF and showed Laurent Fignon what happens to competitors who aren't always looking for an edge.

People only understand things from the framework of their own experience; i.e., thinking something through is not the same as experiencing it first hand.

who suggested that innovative ideas weren't or aren't useful? there are lots of new ideas that are good, e.g., things you mentioned above, plus a whole host of other ideas. however, there's also stacks of innovative ideas and developments that are just plain rubbish (e.g., biopace chainrings).

so, can you explain to me why thinking something through isn't as useful as experiencing it first hand? i don't need to smoke cigarettes to know that they're bad for me, or do i?

ric

Yes I can explain why thinking something through isn't as useful as experiencing it first hand:

We have the hypothesis: 'PC's do something beneficial' for one's cycling performance. Or, if you will, 'PC's do nothing to improve cycling performance'. Now, it may turn out that they improve mechanical efficiency. It may turn out that they force recruitment of more muscle mass. Equally, it may turn out that PC's do absolutely nothing whatsoever. In any case, the next step is: test the hypothesis.

In summary, the reason why thinking something through isn't as useful as experiencing it first hand is: you're only going half way through a closed-loop process. How will you ever know if the hypothesis is right or wrong?

By the way, you're likening testing this particular hypothesis to smoking reminds me of one of the most famous pictures of vintage cycling. The image depicts two TdF riders exchanging a cigarette... during the race! The back story is that riders of the time thought smoking helped performance! Search Google for and image called "Vervaeke and Geldhol smoked the cigarette"

Thank God somebody broke out of that school of thought.

well, i know that when i get on pair of power cranks it'll be hard work, that isn't in question. i'm also well aware of the picture you mention.

as i said, looking at the available evidence and using first principles i don't feel that PC are of any use. we already know from pedal force plate instrumentation and iEMG data that better cyclists tend to mash down harder and pull up less than less good cyclists.

it's also blindingly obvious that PCs don't improve power as much as claimed. it's one of the most ridicously stupid increases in power i've ever seen.

you've still not explained why i need to smoke to know it's bad for me.

ric

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ricstern
well, i know that when i get on pair of power cranks it'll be hard work, that isn't in question. i'm also well aware of the picture you mention.

as i said, looking at the available evidence and using first principles i don't feel that PC are of any use. we already know from pedal force plate instrumentation and iEMG data that better cyclists tend to mash down harder and pull up less than less good cyclists.

it's also blindingly obvious that PCs don't improve power as much as claimed. it's one of the most ridicously stupid increases in power i've ever seen.

you've still not explained why i need to smoke to know it's bad for me.

ric

Ric,

I haven't addressed your analogy to smoking as you've failed utterly to justify it's appropriateness.

Anyway, as I see you are a cycling coach, why don't you design some training regime + test protocol that I can use with my PC training so that we can settle this. I'll be the laboratory guinea pig.

I've got a Tacx erg for doing power testing, if that helps.

Let me know.

an n=1 study is completely meaningless. there is no control and a whole host of other issues.

I'm of the school that thinking myself as being 'of the school of [censored]' and spending a lot of time thinking 'I can't see why ZZZ' is what most everyone has done throughout history. Some examples:

(1) Until the mid-1800's every man, woman and child in Europe was certain that the fastest way to swim was to do breast stroke. It was not until Europeans saw American Indians swimming what we now call "crawl" that they adopted this faster way of swimming.

<within my lifetime>:
(2) [censored] Fosbury turned his back on everything that was known about the high jump and changed the way it's been done ever since.

(3) David Berkoff so improved upon the backstroke that FINA passed rules against his technique.

(4) Greg LeMond used aerobars in the 1989 TdF and showed Laurent Fignon what happens to competitors who aren't always looking for an edge.

People only understand things from the framework of their own experience; i.e., thinking something through is not the same as experiencing it first hand. [/B][/QUOTE]

If a coach considers learning the most effective way to pedal a
waste of training time (Ric in pedalling advice thread), it is
reasonable to assume that he will have the same attitude to
any equipment that can improve technique.
PC's advantage comes from training or forcing a rider to fully
unweight the idling pedal and also in teaching the basic objective
in circular pedaling.
J Anquetil with his linear technique did for pedalling three times
more than what D Fosbury did for the high jump with his flop
technique but unlike Fosbury's flop which could be easily copied,
cycling researchers had not the brains to discover and acquire
Anquetil's technique. Even with Anquetil's linear technique the
correct unweighting of the idling pedal has much to offer.
As Anquetil was winding down his cycling career, Fosbury was
starting to perfect his new jumping technique.
Yes they are too expensive but only in keeping with all other
cycle racing equipment.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by n crowley
If a coach considers learning the most effective way to pedal a
waste of training time (Ric in pedalling advice thread), it is
reasonable to assume that he will have the same attitude to
any equipment that can improve technique.

but noel, people have offered you lots of chances and money to show us your fantastically 'effective' way of pedalling. thus far, you never took up anyone's offer (Waynes and Andrews).

put up or shut up :-)

ric

Well... I've just had the good fortune of discovering another PowerCranks thread (from Feb of this year) and must say that outside of a craigslist politics board I've never seen such fine examples of pig-headed stubborness. And with that, I think I'll back off of this thread for a while.

well there sure are some ignorant people here aren't there. i have used the PC's and swear by the improvements not only in my cycling strength and efficiency, but my running during triathlons as well. Anyone who has ever done single leg reps on their trainer will testify as to how hard it can be. PC's make you do this all the time. I know it sounds simple, but if it hurts your legs riding PC's then something is working that doesn't usually! If I can obtain the same power thru a complete pedal stroke by using less force, but applying that force for the whole 360degrees, I will fatigue less. And that's going to improve my cycling!
DON'T go by hear say! Try them yourself. You don't need to smoke to know it is bad for you, but you won't ever know how it actually feels unless you try it yourself!

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by 100%
well there sure are some ignorant people here aren't there. i have used the PC's and swear by the improvements not only in my cycling strength and efficiency, but my running during triathlons as well. Anyone who has ever done single leg reps on their trainer will testify as to how hard it can be. PC's make you do this all the time. I know it sounds simple, but if it hurts your legs riding PC's then something is working that doesn't usually! If I can obtain the same power thru a complete pedal stroke by using less force, but applying that force for the whole 360degrees, I will fatigue less. And that's going to improve my cycling!
DON'T go by hear say! Try them yourself. You don't need to smoke to know it is bad for you, but you won't ever know how it actually feels unless you try it yourself!

I'm ignorant? not sure how you work that out as i'm a professional cycle coach, and a sports scientist.

Your strength isn't increased with power cranks or any other form of endurance cycle training. additionally, how would you know your efficiency increases? efficiency can only be calculated by measuring your expired respiratory gases, and by using a power meter.

i have not anywhere said it isn't hard to do single leg cycling or to use Power Cranks. I've actually agreed that it is hard.

why does hurting your legs mean you'll improve? i could hit my legs with a brick or some such object. that'll hurt, but it won't improve my cycling :-).

we already know, that elite compared to less elite cyclists push down more and pull up less, yet these are better cyclists.

ric

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ricstern
I'm ignorant? not sure how you work that out as i'm a professional cycle coach, and a sports scientist.

Your strength isn't increased with power cranks or any other form of endurance cycle training. additionally, how would you know your efficiency increases? efficiency can only be calculated by measuring your expired respiratory gases, and by using a power meter.

i have not anywhere said it isn't hard to do single leg cycling or to use Power Cranks. I've actually agreed that it is hard.

why does hurting your legs mean you'll improve? i could hit my legs with a brick or some such object. that'll hurt, but it won't improve my cycling :-).

we already know, that elite compared to less elite cyclists push down more and pull up less, yet these are better cyclists.

ric

==============================================

Leaving aside the commonsense tactics in road racing and the
latest craze of powermeters, how does a cycling coach differ
from a running coach ?

Ric,

(1) Lighten up, buddy... it's not clear to me that he was referring to you. If he was referring to some of the strident [censored] on the other thread, he was right.

(2) Your experiences a sports cyclist and professional cycling coach belie mine as an amateur cyclist, non-sports scientist, non-cycling coach, non-professional.

Specifically, your observations -at least as related above- are dead wrong. re: "Your strength isn't increased with power cranks or any other form of endurance cycle training". If you take a sedentary person, puth them on a cycle and have them do nothing but endurance training, their strength will be improved... every time... Likewise, you put a well-trained cyclist on a pair of PC's (or have them do massive amounts of single-leg drills) and some new muscle groups are going to be recruited (or are going to be recruited to a greater extant) and that's going to result in greater overall strength... assuming they don't lose some strength in other muscle groups in the process.

(3) Regarding a test: your reasons for dismissing doing any sort of testing are pretty shakey. It's as if you are saying that there are no useful n=1 experiments. I'd imagine that much of your work as a coach utilizes experimentation of this exact kind: "let's try this... and see if it works".

[QUOTE]Originally posted by IMHooker
[B]Specifically, your observations -at least as related above- are dead wrong. re: "Your strength isn't increased with power cranks or any other form of endurance cycle training".
[/quote]

i've said it before and i'll say it again :-), non-trained, healthy, mass and gender matched people are on average no weaker (or stronger) than elite trained cyclists.

Quoted post said:

If you take a sedentary person, puth them on a cycle and have them do nothing but endurance training, their strength will be improved... every time...

Quoted post said:

Likewise, you put a well-trained cyclist on a pair of PC's (or have them do massive amounts of single-leg drills) and some new muscle groups are going to be recruited (or are going to be recruited to a greater extant)

Quoted post said:

and that's going to result in greater overall strength... assuming they don't lose some strength in other muscle groups in the process.

Quoted post said:

(3) Regarding a test: your reasons for dismissing doing any sort of testing are pretty shakey. It's as if you are saying that there are no useful n=1 experiments. I'd imagine that much of your work as a coach utilizes experimentation of this exact kind: "let's try this... and see if it works". [/B]

Has anyone tried RotorCranks? If I had money to burn, I would try these before PC's. (Obviously not to increase "strength" or "endurance" but perhaps to go faster...)

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by IMHooker
...you put a well-trained cyclist on a pair of PC's (or have them do massive amounts of single-leg drills) and some new muscle groups are going to be recruited (or are going to be recruited to a greater extant) and that's going to result in greater overall strength... assuming they don't lose some strength in other muscle groups in the process.

Why not do several hundred chin-ups per day? Improving the "fitness" of muscles that are not useful to cycling will not help with your cycling. Thus the chin-ups would be just as useful as all those extra up-strokes.