Another try at the "Biomechanical Evaluation of Pedalling Mechanics-Big Lance' thread

[roadhouse]

Ah, once again, you demonstrate that you don't understand what proof is. The list of race results? Well, to put things in perspective, that list is miniscule compared to the number of race results where Powercrank users didn't finish on the podium. Besides, race results are not controlled experiments. Factors in race results are innumerable. Nothing is held constant, save for the distance of the race. As such, there is nothing in those results that says that training with Powercranks is what produced said results. Your claims and the manufacturer's claims are merely unproven theory at this point. Obviously, I'm using the term theory loosely here.

That scientific studies exist that found no significant or any improvement, let alone the wild improvements the manufacturer claims, indicates there is no conclusive proof they work.

If you actually care to learn something valuable and factual, read this Wikipedia entry on scientific method.

what a load of **** - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. how did getting people onto the podium turn into people not getting onto it? there are only three spots in victory lanCe and how many people riding and running all over this world would be one angle i could use but it's just so damned elementary that i won't.

and i'm not a phucking retard, i know what a scientific method is.

 

[fergie]

and i'm not a phucking retard, i know what a scientific method is.

Someone who knew something about science and methodology wouldn't have brought up Lutrell or anything published in any Strength and Conditioning Journal.

Race results ha ha, just waiting for the day that Phil Liggett reports "yes and Cavendish was the winner with a clearly better pedalling style that Husholvd".

How many people on Franks list have been done for drugs?

 

[n crowley]

i'm just simply amazed. good stuff, Mr Frank Day.​

Training With Independent Cranks Alters Muscle Coordination Pattern in Cyclists//////////////////////////////////////////.
IC training reduces quadriceps exertion, thus preserving it for important moments during competition.

How would you define the important moments in a 25m TT. That study confirms Coyle's facts on (circular or PC pedaling v mashing style). It also means that when serious power output is required, close to maximal quadriceps exertion (mashing style) is a necessity, so the weaker PC/circular style of pedaling has to be discarded and retained for muscle relaxation purposes at a later stage.

 

[alienator]

and i'm not a phucking retard, i know what a scientific method is.

Well, you clearly don't understand what it means, else you'd realize that podium lists aren't proof of anything re: Powercranks. I don't mean "understand the words". What I mean is that you aren't grasping the essence of scientific method. It's a very powerful and necessary process.

 

[roadhouse]

Well, you clearly don't understand what it means, else you'd realize that podium lists aren't proof of anything re: Powercranks. I don't mean "understand the words". What I mean is that you aren't grasping the essence of scientific method. It's a very powerful and necessary process.

yes alienator, i do undersand. i grew up watching Mr. Wizard, for crying out loud.

 

[roadhouse]

How would you define the important moments in a 25m TT. That study confirms Coyle's facts on (circular or PC pedaling v mashing style). It also means that when serious power output is required, close to maximal quadriceps exertion (mashing style) is a necessity, so the weaker PC/circular style of pedaling has to be discarded and retained for muscle relaxation purposes at a later stage.

weaker? how is that possible? it's a more refined technique that allows for maximum output of the FRESH quads when the time to mash is needed. why can't you see that? i've dropped people on my own, entire groups of people, with the circular pedal which i've been on board with since day one. and i was a damn newb and these people have been riding/racing for years so your argument is out of the question.

 

[fergie]

weaker? how is that possible? it's a more refined technique that allows for maximum output of the FRESH quads when the time to mash is needed. why can't you see that? i've dropped people on my own, entire groups of people, with the circular pedal which i've been on board with since day one. and i was a damn newb and these people have been riding/racing for years so your argument is out of the question.

Ahah the Eddy Merckx argument. Eddy was the best rider that ever lived but wasn't all that crash hot as a coach because he knew nothing about smashing himself out in front and expected riders in teams he managed to do the same. When they didn't or more to the point couldn't his response was "but that is how I won my races so why can't you do the same?"

If you went back over the old threads you would realise that while GCs force you to adopt a different style of force application to the pedals this application is not as effective as mashing. Once you go back to normal cranks you revert back to using the extensor muscles. The notion of saving the quads is quaint but ill informed. That study is like Luttrell in the way they didn't find any performance benefit so speculate that a different muscle firing pattern will "save" the quadriceps.

In the same way Lutrell didn't find a performance benefit but found an increase in efficiency. This was however within the technical error of measurement and consider the lack of performance improvement shows that efficiency is not a direct measure of performance like wattage. Probably why both studies where published in strength and conditioning journals where that industry's whole basis is the use of supplemental training methods and equipment rather than a sport science journal or better a physiology journal.

I'm a little surprised that someone who understands science and methodology wasn't aware of this. But then one day Frank plays the "I'm a Physician and an Engineer" card and the next plays dumb when someone calls him on his BS. Case in point his demands for evidence that training with a power meter is superior to other forms of training. Big red herring because using a power meter isn't a method of training it is a form of measurement for ones training. Every post reflects a different chapter of the Snake Oils Salesman's Handbook.

If his product was any good then everyone would be using them and cycling since 2000 and 2010 would be 40% faster. This is not the case. Many people on his list have been done for drug use, some may have tried the product once or twice and get branded a Gimmickcranker for life. I have never seen Hayden Godfrey use them and to insinuate that his 2008 World Title had anything to do with GCs is an insult to the hard work he put in, the years of experience, a surgical operation to correct a blocked artery to his leg and an incredible determination. Or Marco Pinotti who claims the cranks gave him a 15% improvement yet is part of the Colombia team that has one of the best sport science programmes around and his performance improvements could have many different causes. Funny how none of his team mates choose to join him as Gimmickcrankers and reap the rewards.

 

[alienator]

yes alienator, i do undersand. i grew up watching Mr. Wizard, for crying out loud.

Actually, you don't, or so your examples of "proof" seem to indicate.

 

[alienator]

yes alienator, i do undersand. i grew up watching Mr. Wizard, for crying out loud.

nm

 

[alienator]

In the same way Lutrell didn't find a performance benefit but found an increase in efficiency. This was however within the technical error of measurement and consider the lack of performance improvement shows that efficiency is not a direct measure of performance like wattage.

This is a great one, dear to all reputable researcher's hearts: claiming a find when that find doesn't rise above the error calculated in the experiment!

Look! I made an earth shaking discovery!

How do you know?

I measured it!

But the difference you measured, that you allege is your discovery, is less than error in the measurement....

But I measured it! For verification, I measured nothing and came up with three!

 

[roadhouse]

Ahah the Eddy Merckx argument. Eddy was the best rider that ever lived but wasn't all that crash hot as a coach because he knew nothing about smashing himself out in front and expected riders in teams he managed to do the same. When they didn't or more to the point couldn't his response was "but that is how I won my races so why can't you do the same?"

If you went back over the old threads you would realise that while GCs force you to adopt a different style of force application to the pedals this application is not as effective as mashing. Once you go back to normal cranks you revert back to using the extensor muscles. The notion of saving the quads is quaint but ill informed. That study is like Luttrell in the way they didn't find any performance benefit so speculate that a different muscle firing pattern will "save" the quadriceps.

In the same way Lutrell didn't find a performance benefit but found an increase in efficiency. This was however within the technical error of measurement and consider the lack of performance improvement shows that efficiency is not a direct measure of performance like wattage. Probably why both studies where published in strength and conditioning journals where that industry's whole basis is the use of supplemental training methods and equipment rather than a sport science journal or better a physiology journal.

I'm a little surprised that someone who understands science and methodology wasn't aware of this. But then one day Frank plays the "I'm a Physician and an Engineer" card and the next plays dumb when someone calls him on his BS. Case in point his demands for evidence that training with a power meter is superior to other forms of training. Big red herring because using a power meter isn't a method of training it is a form of measurement for ones training. Every post reflects a different chapter of the Snake Oils Salesman's Handbook.

If his product was any good then everyone would be using them and cycling since 2000 and 2010 would be 40% faster. This is not the case. Many people on his list have been done for drug use, some may have tried the product once or twice and get branded a Gimmickcranker for life. I have never seen Hayden Godfrey use them and to insinuate that his 2008 World Title had anything to do with GCs is an insult to the hard work he put in, the years of experience, a surgical operation to correct a blocked artery to his leg and an incredible determination. Or Marco Pinotti who claims the cranks gave him a 15% improvement yet is part of the Colombia team that has one of the best sport science programmes around and his performance improvements could have many different causes. Funny how none of his team mates choose to join him as Gimmickcrankers and reap the rewards.

they should have. i don't ride with power meters and i'd rather go the way of the PC's as i'm more of all day long, all day strong type of person and i associate finesse with power in all things within the pedal and outside for that matter and your scientific **** is just that to an extent as you said it yourself, everyone's different and train on their own level so what of those who got the cranks and didn't put in as much of the required effort as those who could and did so as to as you say fully "reap the rewards." it seems that those who went in wanting to improve did just that and there is apparently more than an abundance of studies that SUGGEST that the ability to lower a heartbeat is a damn good thing when it comes to time and place of power output, let alone the studies that SUGGEST that PC's work. for the reasons that you might not be willing to accept but it's all there regardless.

and your barking up the wrong tree if you think that i'm anyone to question any one in the postion of the use of universites laboratories and equipments that have the ability to do any study in as that is way out of my league and so i'll leave that to them whomever they are and i'll be mutherphucked if i'm gonna be the one to disregard anyone so you're off base with you talking about Luttrell as i don't know who he is outside of a scientist of some sort, a sports scientist so whatever his title, he's still in a position by way of education by universities to do them, if that makes sense. and to be completely fair, i just read last night a study that suggested that PC's didn't do anything whatsoever so i do agree or at the very least believe that it's a case by case basis as in how much do you really want to be that good. PC's or non, i'm pretty damn good on a bicycle and on foot for that matter and it's getting easier and easier daily or every other day rather as that's my main 'training' regime at the moment but after seriusly training with PC's i have a feeling that i'll be outstanding, no science required for that.

it's just who i am, deal with it.

 

[roadhouse]

and i'd actually like to have a power meter as well but that'll be after IC's.

 

[fergie]

there is apparently more than an abundance of studies that SUGGEST that the ability to lower a heartbeat is a damn good thing when it comes to time and place of power output,

Name them.

let alone the studies that SUGGEST that PC's work. for the reasons that you might not be willing to accept but it's all there regardless.

No their not.

and your barking up the wrong tree if you think that i'm anyone to question any one in the postion of the use of universites laboratories and equipments that have the ability to do any study in as that is way out of my league and so i'll leave that to them whomever they are and i'll be mutherphucked if i'm gonna be the one to disregard anyone so you're off base with you talking about Luttrell as i don't know who he is outside of a scientist of some sort, a sports scientist so whatever his title, he's still in a position by way of education by universities to do them, if that makes sense. and to be completely fair, i just read last night a study that suggested that PC's didn't do anything whatsoever so i do agree or at the very least believe that it's a case by case basis as in how much do you really want to be that good.

Lutrell was laughed off stage at ACSM, he hasn't published anything since. Prob a Masters Level Project and he is prob working at Maccas now or in a gym as a Personal Trainer. If you did know something about science and research you would know it was a **** piece of research.

it's just who i am, deal with it.

We don't care who you are. If Lance came here spouting this nonsense I would call him on it as well.

 

[roadhouse]

you're not a very good ambassodor for the likes of your friends from over on Slowtwit.

 

[gman0482]

^^^ This is your brain on drugs......


..... or at the very least, an empty dome pretending to have a brain.

You couldn't explain what scientific method is without some copy/paste.

You do make a great cheerleader for those freely spinning cranks though.

 

[roadhouse]

and another thing, if my toting on that i believe that the cranks are a good and productive tool just because i can personaly see the intended use of that certain form of pedaling technique and understand and like the idea that these 'pull up' muscles which will be forced to be used also benefit my ride and running not to mention my over all physique and that i'm looking forwards to using them as i've only recently been finding out of them and their IN BLACK AND WHITE results helps Frank out or if he in the very least gets a kick out of it than so be it, someone had to invent them and that just so happens to be Frank and someone has to back them up so since that's Frank on both accounts, well, that's just the way the sh!t smells so again, deal with that too.

btw, sorry for all the bullsh!t, Frank.

 

[alienator]

and another thing, if my toting on that i believe that the cranks are a good and productive tool just because i can personaly see the intended use of that certain form of pedaling technique and understand and like the idea that these 'pull up' muscles which will be forced to be used also benefit my ride and running not to mention my over all physique and that i'm looking forwards to using them as i've only recently been finding out of them and their IN BLACK AND WHITE results helps Frank out or if he in the very least gets a kick out of it than so be it, someone had to invent them and that just so happens to be Frank and someone has to back them up so since that's Frank on both accounts, well, that's just the way the sh!t smells so again, deal with that too.

You didn't pass English, either, did you? There was one whole period in that unintelligible morass of words.

Toting on? What were you carrying, i.e. toting?

How do you know Powercranks will be useful to you? You don't. You want to believe they will be, but wishful thinking doesn't produce magical results.

What are black and white results? Aren't results pretty much always black and white?

Deal with that, too? What exactly is "that?" You've presented nothing with which anyone needs to deal.

 

[roadhouse]

You didn't pass English, either, did you? There was one whole period in that unintelligible morass of words.

Toting on? What were you carrying, i.e. toting?

How do you know Powercranks will be useful to you? You don't. You want to believe they will be, but wishful thinking doesn't produce magical results.

What are black and white results? Aren't results pretty much always black and white?

Deal with that, too? What exactly is "that?" You've presented nothing with which anyone needs to deal.

contrary to what you want to see alienator or how long you wanna continue to argue your sh!t side of the saddle, all of those results i posted that i found on Power Crank's site with all of those facts are pretty more than just encouraging as to the evidence that at the very least the PC's can and have worked and that the deliberate use of them got all of those people to those particular results.

take it as you will, deal with it the same.

 

[alienator]

contrary to what you want to see alienator or how long you wanna continue to argue your sh!t side of the saddle, all of those results i posted that i found on Power Crank's site with all of those facts are pretty more than just encouraging as to the evidence that at the very least the PC's can and have worked and that the deliberate use of them got all of those people to those particular results.

take it as you will, deal with it the same.

Uhm. No. You don't know why those athletes won. There is no way to say how they won. Those results are great for marketing BS and that's about it. Over 900 people belonged to the People's Temple religion, but that didn't prove that Jim Jones was a god. I can come up with all manner of irrelevant lists. As I think I said earlier, the number of athletes that have won events in their sports and weren't users of Powercranks dwarfs the list of athletes that used Powercranks and won events in their sports. Implying something about Powercranks from a list of winners who didn't use Powercranks would be just as stupid as implying something from a list of winners who did use the things. Considering the number of factors in those wins--training, diet, genetic makeup, favorable meteorological conditions, luck, to name just a few--claiming that one specific factor was the cause of those wins is logically and scientifically untenable. Those statistics are good slop for the cattle, though.

 

[roadhouse]

yeah, all of those results are taken by Frank so he could lie about it on his site, brilliant. chris mccormack didn't order a pair and neither did cadel evans and Dr. Max Testa is an idiot and greg lemonds suggestions to fellow cyclist turned triathlete who trained on them and raced brilliantly along with all of those people who raced ON the powercranks after training themselves to properly use them therefore benefitting from them by ending up either bettering their personal records or setting course records for their respective age or category or won races are all lying. damn you Frank.