Calf muscles - is it worth working on them?

[Fday]

Frank-would you call this an appropriate period of time: http://pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=3353
(10 watt improvement in maximal aerobic power in a poorly trained individual over 5 months)

A writer for Pezcyclingnews is a "poorly trained individual"? Why don't we just wait and see what the scientific study he is currently involved with on them shows?

I just got off the phone with a fellow (he wants to turn pro triathlete next season) who called me after his second ride. He was able to get out of the saddle and noted his max power 2 days ago was 970 watts, today he reached 1020. He seemed pretty impressed. But then it isn't 40%, only 5%. But, again, it only took 2 days.

Individual results will differ. Our claim is what we believe a typical new user will see, not the max possible or the minimum that everyone will see.

 

[Fday]

Maybe there is an explanation but why would you go to the trouble of making these cranks if you did not have a clue as to where any worthwhile advantage could be found. Why do PC user muscles become sore after very limited use. This does not happen with the normal perfect unweighting technique. I can only attribute this to pulling up more than is necessary for unweighting in this case leg/pedal/crank. What possible explanations are you referring to above.

Why would I not want to make a product that does something I know to be exceptional even though I may not be able to explain "EXACTLY" why? I believe I know what changes it makes to account for the power and efficiency increases that can be measured and proven, I just can't prove these changes are the reasons for the improvements.

Any muscle will become sore if it is exercised beyond its ability. Not everyone who gets on PC's experience soreness. Most do, at least until they have exercised these muscles up to the minimum capability, then PC riding is no more difficult, with no more soreness, than riding ordinary cranks. The body adapts to the stresses it sees regularly. It is that simple. That is what training is all about.

 

[whoawhoa]

A writer for Pezcyclingnews is a "poorly trained individual"? Why don't we just wait and see what the scientific study he is currently involved with on them shows?

MAP of 285? FTP of ~220? Definitely poorly trained for a racing cyclist (although certainly average for a recreational rider, I don't know how much he races). Certainly plenty of room for improvement.

 

[Fday]

MAP of 285? FTP of ~220? Definitely poorly trained for a racing cyclist (although certainly average for a recreational rider, I don't know how much he races). Certainly plenty of room for improvement.

Most of our customers have plenty of room for improvement. Perhaps that is why we see the improvement we do. I can't explain why his numbers are so small, only being 10%. At least they weren't negative.

Frank

 

[ric_stern/RST]

MAP of 285? FTP of ~220? Definitely poorly trained for a racing cyclist (although certainly average for a recreational rider, I don't know how much he races). Certainly plenty of room for improvement.

a 5% increase in power in ~1-year. Not really Frank's 40% claim is it whoawhoa ? especially when that 5% could be due to so many other things...

Frank, a 40% increase in power would have taken him from 223 W to 312 W. This cyclist is below your "average" as you defined it, and presumably had more potential to improve.

Ric

 

[Fday]

a 5% increase in power in ~1-year. Not really Frank's 40% claim is it whoawhoa ? especially when that 5% could be due to so many other things...

Frank, a 40% increase in power would have taken him from 223 W to 312 W. This cyclist is below your "average" as you defined it, and presumably had more potential to improve.

Ric

Mister Stern,

Have you ever heard of the term "bell curve"? If not, maybe you should look it up.

Sincerly,

Frank

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Mister Stern,

Have you ever heard of the term "bell curve"? If not, maybe you should look it up.

Sincerly,

Frank

Of course i have. and, as Rap Daddyo (i think) pointed out to you more than several posts back, that means that by definition there are people out there who gain (according to you) more than 40% power. Where are these "average" (as you defined them = 2nd and 3rd category) cyclists that gained 40%?

Ric

 

[Fday]

Of course i have. and, as Rap Daddyo (i think) pointed out to you more than several posts back, that means that by definition there are people out there who gain (according to you) more than 40% power. Where are these "average" (as you defined them = 2nd and 3rd category) cyclists that gained 40%?

Ric

I believe I have already mentioned the case of triathlete Joe Skufka who, in six months, improved his monthly time trial loop, a loop he did to assess LT, from 20 to 25 mph (a calculated 95% improvement in power I believe), then the next year improved to 27 mph, then the next year improved to 28 mph.

Or the woman who went from a 12.5 mph average for an IM to a 16.25 mph average in less than one season riding primarily indoors (since she lives in the NW Territories). This is a more than doubling of power.

and on and on . . .

The bell curve, believe in it.The typical new user will gain about 40% in power. Your results may differ - especially if you don't use them.

 

[mitosis]

I believe I have already mentioned the case of triathlete Joe Skufka who, in six months, improved his monthly time trial loop, a loop he did to assess LT, from 20 to 25 mph (a calculated 95% improvement in power I believe), then the next year improved to 27 mph, then the next year improved to 28 mph.

Or the woman who went from a 12.5 mph average for an IM to a 16.25 mph average in less than one season riding primarily indoors (since she lives in the NW Territories). This is a more than doubling of power.

and on and on . . .

The bell curve, believe in it.The typical new user will gain about 40% in power. Your results may differ - especially if you don't use them.

As usual, your claims are anecdotal.

Do you have any studies (trials that are carried out following the principles of scientific method and that report statistically significant gains) that support your claims?

 

[Fday]

As usual, your claims are anecdotal.

Do you have any studies (trials that are carried out following the principles of scientific method and that report statistically significant gains) that support your claims?

Try Luttrell again. A statistically significant 10% improvement in efficiency (which should result in a 10% improvement in power - although he did not test for that) in 6 weeks. I am confident in the improvement I claim. You, of course, are given 3 months to reach your own conclusions of their worth or benefit to you (your results may vary, remember the bell curve) in your own study of one. If you are not competent to make that determination on your own then you will have to wait for more definitive studies.

 

[whoawhoa]

I believe I have already mentioned the case of triathlete Joe Skufka who, in six months, improved his monthly time trial loop, a loop he did to assess LT, from 20 to 25 mph (a calculated 95% improvement in power I believe), then the next year improved to 27 mph, then the next year improved to 28 mph.

Well, not only does this discount conditions, aerodynamic changes, etc, it is almost exactly the same type of improvement in mph I made over a similar time frame without PCs. Again, Mr. Skufka was relatively untrained and you have no way to know if his gain was the result of fairly average gains due to typical training, or due to your product.

 

[whoawhoa]

Try Luttrell again. A statistically significant 10% improvement in efficiency (which should result in a 10% improvement in power - although he did not test for that) in 6 weeks. I am confident in the improvement I claim. You, of course, are given 3 months to reach your own conclusions of their worth or benefit to you (your results may vary, remember the bell curve) in your own study of one. If you are not competent to make that determination on your own then you will have to wait for more definitive studies.

Wasn't it in untrained individuals? Can you post a link to the study? (sorry if i missed it earlier)

 

[Fday]

Wasn't it in untrained individuals? Can you post a link to the study? (sorry if i missed it earlier)

No the requirement for entry into the study, as I remember, was having completed three races (cycling or triathlon) in the last 6 months I believe, which they felt qualified them as "trained" cyclists.

http://nsca.allenpress.com/nscaonline/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1519%2F1533-4287(2003)017%3C0785:EOSTUP%3E2.0.CO%3B2

 

[Wherbob]

I think so

 

[Eldrack]

One of the big reasons you are being questioned about this product so much Fday is money. If the benefits aren't rigourously proven people don't want to part with their cash. With a power metre, fine they are expensive but the benefits are obvious and well proven. Same with spending more on a bike so that it is lighter etc. Powercranks are expensive and so unless there is a huge wealth of evidence supporting them, including a series of detailed, scientifically sounds studies done proving their worth people don't want to shell out for them when a power metre is a more proven piece of kit that will help them improve.

 

[sidewind]

My simple maths for Power Cranks would be:
-Weight of the leg on the upward phase: 1 kg
-Crank length: 170 mm = 0.17 m
-Rpm = 90/min = 1.5 / s

Power needed for lifting the leg on upstroke:
2 * 1 kg * 10 m/s2 * 0.34 m * 1.5 1/s = 10.2 W

So wether there is claim of 40 % improvement for e.g. 250 W power, that would mean 100 W improvement, and indicate that the subject would have been pressing the pedal during the upstroke by 10 kg weight.

For me, something like 1 kg would look a reasonable figure, and the 10 Watts like a maximum possible improvement for experienced cyclist.

 

[Fday]

One of the big reasons you are being questioned about this product so much Fday is money. If the benefits aren't rigourously proven people don't want to part with their cash. With a power metre, fine they are expensive but the benefits are obvious and well proven. Same with spending more on a bike so that it is lighter etc. Powercranks are expensive and so unless there is a huge wealth of evidence supporting them, including a series of detailed, scientifically sounds studies done proving their worth people don't want to shell out for them when a power metre is a more proven piece of kit that will help them improve.

I understand that concern. It is why I offer an unconditional 90 day moneyback guarantee. Name another training product manufacturer that does that? If you can't determine that the benefits YOU are seeing in that time are worth the cost TO YOU (not what Ric or anyone else thinks the benefits will be or not be to you or anyone else) in that time, send them back.

I really don't understand the price issue here. Compared to what other products cost that are designed to improve performance, from powermeters to wheels to aerodynamic frames, coaching services, etc. PowerCranks are on the low end of the price spectrum. Few, if any, of these other products have controlled studies demonstrating benefit that some demand of PC's. If PC's did just 10% of what we claimed they would probably, within a year or so, improve performance of most athletes better than any of these other other products and, if you already own these products already, make at least some of them more valuable since you will have a bigger engine and be going faster - where the aero stuff becomes more important.

So, I don't see PC's as having a price issue. PC's have a credibility issue. You either believe it is worth the time risk (it is hardly a financial risk with the moneyback guarantee) to see what they will do for you or you do not.

 

[Fday]

My simple maths for Power Cranks would be:
-Weight of the leg on the upward phase: 1 kg
-Crank length: 170 mm = 0.17 m
-Rpm = 90/min = 1.5 / s

Power needed for lifting the leg on upstroke:
2 * 1 kg * 10 m/s2 * 0.34 m * 1.5 1/s = 10.2 W

So wether there is claim of 40 % improvement for e.g. 250 W power, that would mean 100 W improvement, and indicate that the subject would have been pressing the pedal during the upstroke by 10 kg weight.

For me, something like 1 kg would look a reasonable figure, and the 10 Watts like a maximum possible improvement for experienced cyclist.

If unweighting were the only benefit I would agree pretty much with your figures. However, the typical user sees greater benefits than that (Craig Howie just reported improving his LT from 245 to 295 in one year - Phil Holman improved his track top speed from 35 to 38 mph in 7 months, a calculated power increase of 28%). These unexpectedly large improvements have to be explained somehow so there have to be other mechanisms beyond simple unweighting. I believe they are coming mostly from improving the direction of the pedal force application.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

I understand that concern. It is why I offer an unconditional 90 day moneyback guarantee. Name another training product manufacturer that does that? If you can't determine that the benefits YOU are seeing in that time are worth the cost TO YOU (not what Ric or anyone else thinks the benefits will be or not be to you or anyone else) in that time, send them back.

Full credit for offering an unconditional moneyback guarantee. However, I am NOT suggesting anything in terms of benefits. I am merely repeating what YOU claim are the benefits for the average use.

So, for the average user, in this 90-day period and who use the cranks exclusively, on average what sort of power output do you expect them to see?

Ric

 

[Fday]

Full credit for offering an unconditional moneyback guarantee. However, I am NOT suggesting anything in terms of benefits. I am merely repeating what YOU claim are the benefits for the average use.

So, for the average user, in this 90-day period and who use the cranks exclusively, on average what sort of power output do you expect them to see?

Ric

Enough such that they will know that the long-term benefits are going to be well worth the cost to them. To a very elite cyclist, that might be only 1%. If it is 1% that they determine they can't get any other way, it is not inconceivable that they might even find that little amount worth it to them. The average customer might see 10% or more in this period. It is not important what the number is if the customer sees "enough" to make what they paid for them worth the cost. I put the number out more to let the customer know I think they will find the benefits substantial. I don't make the determination of worth, the customer does. If a customer says "He promised me 40% and I only saw 20% so I am sending them back" so be it.