The latter fact doesn't matter: you still helped underwrite the cost of the study, a fact that should have been indicated by the authors.
You are correct.
acoggan said:
It is certainly a
potential bias...which is why, ethically-speaking, it should have been revealed.
You are correct.
acoggan said:
I don't recall any such conversation, and I don't recall bad-mouthing your product (although I do obviously question its usefulness).
I think that is called selective memory. I believe that offer was made many years ago on RBR and again on SlowTwitch.
acoggan said:
Fully unweight, actually, at least at higher exercise intensities. But again, that's why, at least with respect to cycling, your product seems to be a solution in search of a problem.
How does one fully unweight when one is using platform pedals (how everyone learns) and maintain contact with the pedal to be ready for the downstroke as soon as over the top? I thought the oft cited Coyle study proved that the most elite cyclists did not fully unweight on the upstroke. What are you talking about here?
Given that the firing sequence of different muscles, etc., is nearly identical between walking/running and pedaling, I'd say it has much more to do with evolution than what we did as little kids.
Yes, it is clear the firing sequence of these muscles is similar between these disciplines. However, the intensity of the various muscle contractions is quite different and the intensity of the various contractions is what primarily determines differences in form (which probably explains why we have such a big running impact compared to ordinary cycling).
acoggan said:
But people already largely, if not entirely, unweight the pedal on the upstroke, so what's the purpose of your cranks if not to "...teach people how to generate positive power on the upstroke..."?
They do. I agree people largely unweight but I disagree that they entirely unweight. How long did you last when you tried the cranks again? Anyone who completely unweights on the upstroke would have no trouble riding my cranks. The typical first ride for most new users is 10-15 minutes, for most pros 20-30 minutes although, infrequently, someone can go over an hour.
acoggan said:
Regardless of how the leg arrives at the top of the pedal stroke, it has exactly the same potential energy. Moreover, the kinetic energy of the leg is also always going to be essentially the same, because if your leg were traveling markedly slower at that point of the pedal cycle versus another than your freewheel/freehub would disengage, and it can't travel markedly faster at that point because that would require the bike to shoot forward at an impossibly high (given human power output) rate of acceleration.
You are correct there, the potential energy at the top is the same. However, the question is where did the energy come from to put that potential energy into the leg. It can come from only two sources. either internally from itself or, if that is not sufficient, it must be transferred across the axle though the cranks and come from the leg pushing down, robbing from the energy that can be throughput to the wheel.
And, you are crazy when you talk about the kinetic energy being essentially the same. Do the math. The problem is the thigh and the lower leg have substantially different masses. And, besides, this issue has nothing to do with this discussion, you are only trying to obfuscate the matter for most here.
acoggan said:
The only reason you "see" such a large potential for gains in efficiency here is because you don't really understand the biomechanics of pedaling. Those that do - e.g., Jim Martin, Jeff Broker - don't see what you see.
Ugh, I can't help what they can't see. What I do see are huge improvements reported by users that go way beyond the normal training expectations and in some studies (Luttrell and other unpublished data) and am trying to explain where these come from. You are, of course, free to ignore these reports if you choose. Not much of a scientific curiosity there me thinks though.
acoggan said:
It illustrates that training alone can improve efficiency, and in a fairly short period of time at that.
So, a study that shows training can improve pedaling efficiency in the untrained has meaning to you to criticize a study of trained cyclists where both groups train but only one sees efficiency improvements? Geez, why don't you use this study to criticize the conclusions of Coyle in explaining Lances documented efficiency improvements. No one trained more than him so it is reasonable, using this logic, that these observed improvements should have come just from his training, no need to invoke changes in fibre type.
acoggan said:
Except that the control group didn't also come into the lab and pedal under the supervision (coaching?) of the investigators.
I thought they did. If they didn't then so be it and someone else will have to do that (and, you will probably be relieved to hear, I think those are underway).