Calf muscles - is it worth working on them?

[Fday]

Hey I said no Rick . Some of the claims seem a bit inflated, but aside from that ; Zero , zipp , nada, no benifit?

What you might find interesting Mr. Bill is Phil Holman was just as negative as Ric on these cranks (this is impossible, you are crazy, the lifting leg is inefficient, etc. etc.) back on an old rec.bicycles.racing and rec.bicycles.tech threads and we were probably having a more nasty debate so I challenged him to use the cranks as directed and report back to the group whatever happened. My only requirement was he had to use the PC's exclusively in training. A. C. was part of that discussion as I remember. He had the integrity to accept the challenge and do what he promised and he achieved somewhat surprising (to him, not to me) results.

check it out.

 

[bikeguy]

That is your analysis. So be it. I don't know what Phil Holman's capability was before he got PC's but I suspect he was average to above average regarding our typical customer (with a top speed capability of 35 mph pre pc I would put him somewhat above average). His improvement in 7 months calculates to close to a 30% improvement in power (would you dispute this?) - which is right in line with my claims for our average user -

Well as you yourself said, aerodynamics plays a large role (among many others) - so no, an increase in avg speed over the pursuit length doesn't mean Holman's power increased at all.

yet, no one, except you,

I agree with him.

would seem to think everyone who is worth anything that touches these things should be setting the world hour record in a year or so. It is really silly of you to make such a statement or draw such a conclusion.

Are you suggesting that a near elite or elite cyclist woudn't see much improvement at all (or any) from using PC's? As in that efficiency can be maximized by just riding?

-Bikeguy

 

[WarrenG]

What you might find interesting Mr. Bill is Phil Holman was just as negative as Ric on these cranks (this is impossible, you are crazy, the lifting leg is inefficient, etc. etc.) back on an old rec.bicycles.racing and rec.bicycles.tech threads and we were probably having a more nasty debate so I challenged him to use the cranks as directed and report back to the group whatever happened. My only requirement was he had to use the PC's exclusively in training. A. C. was part of that discussion as I remember. He had the integrity to accept the challenge and do what he promised and he achieved somewhat surprising (to him, not to me) results.

check it out.

I reacall that debate/discussion vaguely. I also seem to recall that Phil was pretty good before the PC's and his training was a bit sub-optimal. Hard to say really what helped, better training, more experience (I don't think he had a lot), something else, and/or the PC's. You mentioned placebo effect and I can see how that may have played a role.

I've seen some pursuiters rolling around in a really big gear to good success in that event, but only that event. I guess if pursuit and road TT's are your only concern then you can learn how to roll a big gear using pc's or whatever else, but how that helps you for other events...?

It's easy to take shots at claims like 40% improvement because we know that such a claim is bound to be the extreme example, and somebody who could achieve such an increase is likely learning and doing other things that (also?) help them.

Many people have a hard time when a product is marketed with claims that appear inflated. Would it sell just as well or better if the claims were more specific about the amount of improvements that other customers have achieved and for what events they achieved them? For a product that is fairly technical in nature, hyperbole is not the kind of information those technically-oriented potential customers prefer to use for their evaluation.

If Frank had come here and said the possible improvement is an increase of 5-20% in power would that play out differently?

A guy like Garzelli would be happy with 2%. I'll try to find out what he thinks.

 

[kmavm]

That is your analysis. So be it. I don't know what Phil Holman's capability was before he got PC's but I suspect he was average to above average regarding our typical customer (with a top speed capability of 35 mph pre pc I would put him somewhat above average). His improvement in 7 months calculates to close to a 30% improvement in power (would you dispute this?) - which is right in line with my claims for our average user - yet, no one, except you, would seem to think everyone who is worth anything that touches these things should be setting the world hour record in a year or so. It is really silly of you to make such a statement or draw such a conclusion.

For the record, Ric is not alone in finding the 40% power improvement claim completely ridiculous. Anybody who's ever actually used a powermeter finds this claim completely ludicrous.

I'm a non-spectacular cyclist whose FT is around 4.1 W/kg. A 40% improvement would land me at 5.74 W/kg, just shy of "world-class" in Coggan's power profile. It would have a greater performance impact in time trials than all the aero equipment ever invented, and EPO, combined. If your cranks came even close to doing what you claim, your clients would unilaterally dominate the sport. They don't. Frank, if you would just admit that the 40% number was the result of some sort of measurement error or anomaly in the set of people studied, I could begin to take some of your claims seriously. By sticking to your guns on this obvious lie, it makes the whole enterprise stink of snake oil.

 

[Fday]

Are you suggesting that a near elite or elite cyclist woudn't see much improvement at all (or any) from using PC's? As in that efficiency can be maximized by just riding?

-Bikeguy

No, I believe almost every cyclist would benefit except the elites already have accomplished much of what the PC's do for people through many years of hard work so there is less room for improvement. However, at that level even a small improvement is welcome as evident by the number of pros using them now who, seemingly, liking them. As Greg LeMond said to me when he first saw and rode these, "I spent years and years trying to learn how to do this and now people can learn it in months."

Now, I am NOT saying that everyone can become as good as GL. Just because people can learn the same technique as GL, doesn't mean they will be his equal unless they have the same genetics and work ethic.

 

[Fday]

I reacall that debate/discussion vaguely. I also seem to recall that Phil was pretty good before the PC's and his training was a bit sub-optimal. Hard to say really what helped, better training, more experience (I don't think he had a lot), something else, and/or the PC's. You mentioned placebo effect and I can see how that may have played a role.

I've seen some pursuiters rolling around in a really big gear to good success in that event, but only that event. I guess if pursuit and road TT's are your only concern then you can learn how to roll a big gear using pc's or whatever else, but how that helps you for other events...?

It's easy to take shots at claims like 40% improvement because we know that such a claim is bound to be the extreme example, and somebody who could achieve such an increase is likely learning and doing other things that (also?) help them.

Many people have a hard time when a product is marketed with claims that appear inflated. Would it sell just as well or better if the claims were more specific about the amount of improvements that other customers have achieved and for what events they achieved them? For a product that is fairly technical in nature, hyperbole is not the kind of information those technically-oriented potential customers prefer to use for their evaluation.

If Frank had come here and said the possible improvement is an increase of 5-20% in power would that play out differently?

A guy like Garzelli would be happy with 2%. I'll try to find out what he thinks.

Didn't Phils result perk up your curiosity?

I look forward to hear what Garzelli tells you. Maybe he can give you some testing numbers. From what I am told the whole LG-Bianchi squad (at least the major players) love them.

I am not sure it is to my advantage to reduce my claims to something less than what they are. Most people will not suffer through the PC transition for the promise of a few percentage points in power. If you think you can get a step change you might bite the bullet and try for the brass ring. For those that do, the numbers i claim are right in the middle of what my typical customer sees. You can believe it or not but why should I lie to you or to them? I do offer a 90 day unconditional moneyback guarantee. If I am lying to them they would all be sending them back. They do not.

 

[WarrenG]

Didn't Phils result perk up your curiosity?

Not at all, because I've seen some masters pursuiters employing techniques to do well in the pursuit that are inappropriate for other events on the track and for mass-start road events. Also, his results were in an older masters age group-one that isn't as competitive as some others.

What evidence do you have that PC's were the (main) reason he improved?

 

[Fday]

What evidence do you have that PC's were the (main) reason he improved?

Because he was just as negative towards them as anyone has been before this little test, he did nothing else different in his training, and after it was all said and done, he said they were responsible for his improvement.

 

[Fday]

I am really amazed. You wrote regarding my question as to whether you were curious after Phil Holman's results

Not at all, because I've seen some masters pursuiters employing techniques to do well in the pursuit that are inappropriate for other events on the track and for mass-start road events. Also, his results were in an older masters age group-one that isn't as competitive as some others.

What evidence do you have that PC's were the (main) reason he improved?

and, in the interim of these last 5 or so years, we have managed to get the Olympic road race champion, the old world cup champion (same person), last year's winner of the pro tour, the world time trial champion, the winner of Pari-Roubais, etc., etc., etc. training on them plus a study showing substantial improvement in cycling efficiency in only six weeks in trained cyclists and you (and many others here and elsewhere) still are not, seemingly, the least bit curious as to whether there might be something to them, even if you think my claims somewhat exaggerated (without any basis I might add). Am I missing something here? (Other than a loose screw for continuing to get involved in these so-called "discussions")

 

[WarrenG]

...in the interim of these last 5 or so years, we have managed to get the Olympic road race champion, the old world cup champion (same person),
last year's winner of the pro tour, the world time trial champion, the winner of Pari-Roubais, etc., etc., etc. training on them plus a study showing substantial improvement in cycling efficiency in only six weeks in trained cyclists and you (and many others here and elsewhere) still are not, seemingly, the least bit curious as to whether there might be something to them...

I explained why the results of the two American amateurs you mentioned weren't really much of a testimonial. I said I'd ask Max about the experiences of Garzelli, Larsen, Bettini(?) since he has coached all these guys in the past. So, I expect he'd have some feedback about them. OTOH, Max has never suggested that I try PC's.

Is there a SRM/PC/Octolink version?

 

[Fday]

I explained why the results of the two American amateurs you mentioned weren't really much of a testimonial. I said I'd ask Max about the experiences of Garzelli, Larsen, Bettini(?) since he has coached all these guys in the past. So, I expect he'd have some feedback about them. OTOH, Max has never suggested that I try PC's.

Is there a SRM/PC/Octolink version?

Yes, we are working on an SRM version of PC's. It should be available soon. It will be available in Octalink.

What surprises me (and I am not talking just you here but the community of cyclists and sports "scientists" in general here) is how easy it is for people to explain these resuts by invoking some other mechanism, ANY OTHER MECHANISM rather than accepting the PC's might have some actual or theoretical benefit, even if they think it is less than what I claim. I understand how that might occur if there was only one anecdotal report but with repeated reports (and an absolute dearth of reports of "I tried them according to the directions and nothing happened") continuing over years now it seems to me that at least some interest should be aroused. Instead each new report seems to simply make peoples bias against them more ingrained and shrill. Where is the intellectual/scientific curiosity? These attitudes are not in keeping with how I was trained.

Even cold fusion didn't get this kind of reception (although the claim that the earth was not the center of the universe received a similar reception amongst the experts at the time). Yes, there were vocal doubters of cold fusion but at least some of the doubters did the scientific thing, they tried to repeat the experiment rather than say "I know the answer, this is impossible, I won't waste my time".

Please do not take my comments personally.

Frank

 

[WarrenG]

What surprises me (and I am not talking just you here but the community of cyclists and sports "scientists" in general here) is how easy it is for people to explain these resuts by invoking some other mechanism, ANY OTHER MECHANISM rather than accepting the PC's might have some actual or theoretical benefit, even if they think it is less than what I claim. I understand how that might occur if there was only one anecdotal report but with repeated reports (and an absolute dearth of reports of "I tried them according to the directions and nothing happened") continuing over years now it seems to me that at least some interest should be aroused. Instead each new report seems to simply make peoples bias against them more ingrained and shrill. Where is the intellectual/scientific curiosity? These attitudes are not in keeping with how I was trained.

The risk is high if a person spends months trying to use them but sees no benefit, and possibly some detriment. Money back doesn't make up for a loss. A person would also need to mount them on a second bike for training. It sounds to me like doing out of the saddle sprints would be near impossible, at least for awhile.

I don't know how much you invest in R&D but a study like I mentioned earlier with 3 or 4 groups would add a lot to the credibility of PC's if it showed that they worked, that the change was in fact of benefit for a rider's performance in a variety of events, and that they worked significantly better than other methods used for attempting to improve pedaling efficiency.

 

[frenchyge]

(and an absolute dearth of reports of "I tried them according to the directions and nothing happened")

Funny, that's exactly how I interpret the two test cases illustrated on Pez Cycling http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=3511 and http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=3081 Well, to be more correct, those stories seem to indicate that the PC's first put a rider into a *severe hole* during the first season as they acclimate. Even in the second season on the PC's, the Cat 1 racer abandons the cranks in January, as he is still unable to do any intensity on them, to be able to proceed with his training. Somehow, he still attributes his fitness that year to the PC's rather than his training plan, but I suppose that also illustrates why we don't see more reports of that nature. I'd think a Cat 1 would be delighted with a 20% no, 10%.... 5%, gain in sustainable power; but Josh's goal for this year is to be able to tolerate riding on the PC's for the first few months of intervals, instead. That's not exactly a glowing report, IMO, unlike the testimonials shown on the PC website.

Admittedly, Dr. Cheung got hurt before the adaptation period was complete, so it's impossible to say what he would have experienced, had he continued their use.

 

[frenchyge]

I don't know how much you invest in R&D but a study like I mentioned earlier with 3 or 4 groups would add a lot to the credibility of PC's if it showed that they worked, that the change was in fact of benefit for a rider's performance in a variety of events, and that they worked significantly better than other methods used for attempting to improve pedaling efficiency.

I would agree, but the marketing indicates that the results occur after ~9-12 months of use. That's tough to test in a study, and is also much longer than the 90-day money back guarantee period. The money back guarantee seems to be "If your legs/hips feel beaten to a pulp within 90 days then they must be working. If not, return them for a full refund."

I agree that while the idea of the PCs is intriguing (to me, at least), they require a tremendous leap of faith to soldier through the hard times.

 

[Billsworld]

I have read pros and cons on things like squatting, power cleans, dead lift, plyometrics, and on and on. None of the things that I mentioned have anything to do with spinning cranks, and most sprtinters seem to do all or most of those things. Can anyone provide a study as to the effect of heavy squatting deadlifts or powercleans for track cyclists.? I look at Theo Bos, and he reminds me of Carl Lewis . Then you look at some of the Brits, and they are big and obviously spend some time in the gym. Maybe the PCs are going to have a different result with each rider as lifting and plyos do. I am not defending the claims, just not dismissing them either. I Usually am %100 behind AC and Rick....ok 99.5, but dont understand the strong stance against this product.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

I Usually am %100 behind AC and Rick....ok 99.5, but dont understand the strong stance against this product.

because anyone that understands sports science, or has a power meter, knows that a 40% increase in power in a trained cyclist just isn't happening. If it did, then any PC user would clean up in all races.

then of course, there's the issue of how people pedal, and we know that better riders tend to push down more and pull up less.

If i even had an inkling that they'd work, and even if i thought i'd only get a 50% increase of Franks claim (i.e. a 20% increase in power) i'd have bought them ages ago. Franks been selling these cranks long enough now, for people to have achieved their 40% increase, and beat everyone in every race. But it isn't happening (the 40% increase).

My guess, in why people don't return the cranks is simply that they a) hurt like hell to use (so people assume it's doing them good), and b) have spent money and like to think it's doing them good.

Ric

 

[Fday]

I would agree, but the marketing indicates that the results occur after ~9-12 months of use. That's tough to test in a study, and is also much longer than the 90-day money back guarantee period. The money back guarantee seems to be "If your legs/hips feel beaten to a pulp within 90 days then they must be working. If not, return them for a full refund."

I agree that while the idea of the PCs is intriguing (to me, at least), they require a tremendous leap of faith to soldier through the hard times.

Phoeey! Almost all new users are pretty much through the adaption phase in a week or so, in that the cranks no longer feel strange and they don't have to think about pedaling to make it happen. In addition, essentially every new rider will see improvement in their PC ability everytime they get on the bike. Further, about 90% are beginning to see biking speed improvements in less than a month, way under the 90 day moneyback guarantee. It is just that these improvements they are seeing cannot be sustained because they do not have a good base in these new muscles we are asking them to use more fully. But, they are starting to see benefit and can see there is light at the end of the tunnel. An occasional person (some of them elites or pros) have difficulty adapting that continues for months). And, someone whose ego has trouble taking a speed hit, even if temporary and short have trouble with them. Most pros are up to 2 hour rides on them in a week or two.

If it were not for this fairly steep learning curve I am of the belief that most would be sending them back pretty quickly. The reason for the 6-9 month marketing claim is it takes that long to get a reasonable base before one can sustain an effort in these muscles. Such a time period is about what it takes to get a sedentary person up to speed to be able to do a marathon in a reasonable time without walking. And, still they are way below an optimum base. Why would you expect these changes to the couch potato muscles would happen faster or be easier in a cyclist?

 

[Fday]

The risk is high if a person spends months trying to use them but sees no benefit, and possibly some detriment. Money back doesn't make up for a loss. A person would also need to mount them on a second bike for training. It sounds to me like doing out of the saddle sprints would be near impossible, at least for awhile.

I don't know how much you invest in R&D but a study like I mentioned earlier with 3 or 4 groups would add a lot to the credibility of PC's if it showed that they worked, that the change was in fact of benefit for a rider's performance in a variety of events, and that they worked significantly better than other methods used for attempting to improve pedaling efficiency.

A couple of things. I am not aware of anyone who has ever claimed training with PC's slowed them down in a race. Lots of things can slow someone down. Hardly anything can reliably speed them up. We do slow them down in training in the beginning, but training is not racing.

For the experienced cyclist I can pretty reliably teach them to get out of the saddle on the first day at an expo. Most users are out of the saddle by the third week, although they are not sprinting yet. But, out of the saddle sprints have and can be done on PC's if you want to learn that skill.

Lastly, if I were to conduct such a study myself it would be roundly criticized as being biased and would have no influence on the likes of AC and others like him. Such a criticism is thrown out by these folks at the Luttrell study and all we did is provide them with cranks for conducting the study. There are additional studies underway right now, some of whom we have supported with product or reduced price product and some of whom we have not. Either way, there is no such thing as a perfect study. If you are waiting for the perfect study on this product you are going to wait a very long time.

 

[frenchyge]

Phoeey! Almost all new users are pretty much through the adaption phase in a week or so, in that the cranks no longer feel strange and they don't have to think about pedaling to make it happen. In addition, essentially every new rider will see improvement in their PC ability everytime they get on the bike.

Sorry, I was more referring to the time period needed to be back up to one's original training volume with the PC's, rather than the time needed to learn to use them at all.

Further, about 90% are beginning to see biking speed improvements in less than a month, way under the 90 day moneyback guarantee. It is just that these improvements they are seeing cannot be sustained because they do not have a good base in these new muscles we are asking them to use more fully.

That's really my point. How could a customer tell if they're working within 90 days if they're not even able to use the PCs in the riding/training modes they were doing without them. I can ride at all different speeds now, and the only difference is the duration of time that I can sustain them. What does that show?

Why would you expect these changes to the couch potato muscles would happen faster or be easier in a cyclist?

I don't really have any expectations of that, and that's not really relevant to my point. My point was that a rider will not be able to see an improvement in their typical riding or training within 90 days, and so they must make their assessment based on some other criteria. IOW, it there's pain in the hips then the PCs must be doing *something*.

 

[Billsworld]

because anyone that understands sports science, or has a power meter, knows that a 40% increase in power in a trained cyclist just isn't happening. If it did, then any PC user would clean up in all races.

then of course, there's the issue of how people pedal, and we know that better riders tend to push down more and pull up less.

If i even had an inkling that they'd work, and even if i thought i'd only get a 50% increase of Franks claim (i.e. a 20% increase in power) i'd have bought them ages ago. Franks been selling these cranks long enough now, for people to have achieved their 40% increase, and beat everyone in every race. But it isn't happening (the 40% increase).

My guess, in why people don't return the cranks is simply that they a) hurt like hell to use (so people assume it's doing them good), and b) have spent money and like to think it's doing them good.

Ric

I would use them to suit my needs. I have a PT on both bikes, and with would love even a 5% gain in 5sec power. I am not greedy like you cat 1 guys