Data (was PowerCranks Study)

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Phil Holman, Oct 6, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Phil Holman

    Phil Holman Guest

    Here is a condensed preview of the numbers from the PC testing. The study was conducted by Mark D.
    Luttrell, Dept of Health, Sport and Exercise Science, University of Kansas and Jeffrey A.
    Pottteiger, Dept of Physical Education, Health and Sports Studies, Miami University.

    The effects of 6 weeks of training with PCs was examined for 6 cyclists (+6 with regular cranks) to
    determine changes in V02 max, AT, HR, V0, and RER during a 1 hour submaximal ride (~69% V02 max).

    Here are the numbers for Heartrate (HR) and Gross Efficiency (GE) before and after training.

    Time (minutes)

    PC Group 15 30 45 60

    HR Pre 154 155 156 157

    Post 141 140 141 141

    GE (%)Pre 21.5 21.3 21.6 21.5

    Post 23.1 23.0 23.6 23.9

    Control Group

    HR Pre 166 165 166 163

    Post 159 159 159 160

    GE (%) Pre 21.3 20.8 20.8 21.2

    Post 21.8 21.5 21.3 21.0

    Significant is the 2% increase in Gross Efficiency of the PC group.

    Phil Holman
     
    Tags:


  2. Racer X

    Racer X Guest

    HOLE MAN,

    Why would a person who wants to find out whether or not POWER CRANKS are better than regular cranks
    introduce the highly variable noise that this study does?

    I could just as easily conclude from this data set that the reason why it showed a 2% increase in
    "gross effiency" is because the subjects tested simply had an additional 6 weeks worth of training
    under their belt. In no way, shape, or form, could one conclude that the extra 2% gain was due
    solely to the use of Power Cranks. In fact, the subjects claimed 2% gain could have just as easily
    have come from a 3-4% increase in fitness output coupled to a decrease of 1-2% (caused by the Power
    Cranks), thereby resulting in a 2% net gain.

    Also, no reputable scientist claims confidance in a study with an "n" number of only 6 subjects.

    In addition, the University of Kansas and Miami University are both party schools and any
    "scientific study" out of these overglorified frat houses probably aren't going to be appearing in
    Nature anytime soon.

    It was a nice infomercial though. One question: do Power Cranks come with

    Take care,

    Racer X

    Phil Holman wrote:

    > Here is a condensed preview of the numbers from the PC testing. The study was conducted by Mark D.
    > Luttrell, Dept of Health, Sport and Exercise Science, University of Kansas and Jeffrey A.
    > Pottteiger, Dept of Physical Education, Health and Sports Studies, Miami University.
    >
    > The effects of 6 weeks of training with PCs was examined for 6 cyclists (+6 with regular
    > cranks) to determine changes in V02 max, AT, HR, V0, and RER during a 1 hour submaximal ride
    > (~69% V02 max).
    >
    > Here are the numbers for Heartrate (HR) and Gross Efficiency (GE) before and after training.
    >
    > Time (minutes)
    >
    > PC Group 15 30 45 60
    >
    > HR Pre 154 155 156 157
    >
    > Post 141 140 141 141
    >
    > GE (%)Pre 21.5 21.3 21.6 21.5
    >
    > Post 23.1 23.0 23.6 23.9
    >
    > Control Group
    >
    > HR Pre 166 165 166 163
    >
    > Post 159 159 159 160
    >
    > GE (%) Pre 21.3 20.8 20.8 21.2
    >
    > Post 21.8 21.5 21.3 21.0
    >
    > Significant is the 2% increase in Gross Efficiency of the PC group.
    >
    > Phil Holman
     
  3. "RACER X" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >
    > In addition, the University of Kansas and Miami University are both party schools and any
    > "scientific study" out of these overglorified frat houses probably aren't going to be appearing in
    > Nature anytime soon.
    >

    I'm confident that people in southwestern Ohio laugh at dumbasses like you quite often.

    http://www.miami.muohio.edu/about_miami/index.cfm

    Dr. Jeffrey Aaron Potteiger Classification: faculty Title: Chair & Professor UniqueID: potteija
    E-Mail Address: potte[email protected] delivered to [email protected] Division: VP - Provost
    Department: Phys Educ Hlth Sport Studies Campus Address: Phys Educ Hlth & Sprt Studies Phillips
    Hall, 106B Campus Phone: +1 513 529 2700

    The party school is the University of Miami.
     
  4. Chris

    Chris Guest

    Any chance we can get the full citation? I'd like to review the full paper.

    Chris

    "Phil Holman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > Here is a condensed preview of the numbers from the PC testing. The study was conducted by Mark D.
    > Luttrell, Dept of Health, Sport and Exercise Science, University of Kansas and Jeffrey A.
    > Pottteiger, Dept of Physical Education, Health and Sports Studies, Miami University.
    >
    > The effects of 6 weeks of training with PCs was examined for 6 cyclists (+6 with regular
    > cranks) to determine changes in V02 max, AT, HR, V0, and RER during a 1 hour submaximal ride
    > (~69% V02 max).
    >
    > Here are the numbers for Heartrate (HR) and Gross Efficiency (GE) before and after training.
    >
    > Time (minutes)
    >
    > PC Group 15 30 45 60
    >
    > HR Pre 154 155 156 157
    >
    > Post 141 140 141 141
    >
    >
    >
    > GE (%)Pre 21.5 21.3 21.6 21.5
    >
    > Post 23.1 23.0 23.6 23.9
    >
    >
    >
    > Control Group
    >
    > HR Pre 166 165 166 163
    >
    > Post 159 159 159 160
    >
    >
    >
    > GE (%) Pre 21.3 20.8 20.8 21.2
    >
    > Post 21.8 21.5 21.3 21.0
    >
    > Significant is the 2% increase in Gross Efficiency of the PC group.
    >
    > Phil Holman
     
  5. Racer X

    Racer X Guest

    Dude,

    I already wrote the only review that matters. Why try to reinvent the wheel?

    Racer X

    chris wrote:

    > Any chance we can get the full citation? I'd like to review the full paper.
    >
    > Chris
    >
    > "Phil Holman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]>...
    > > Here is a condensed preview of the numbers from the PC testing. The study was conducted by Mark
    > > D. Luttrell, Dept of Health, Sport and Exercise Science, University of Kansas and Jeffrey A.
    > > Pottteiger, Dept of Physical Education, Health and Sports Studies, Miami University.
    > >
    > > The effects of 6 weeks of training with PCs was examined for 6 cyclists (+6 with regular
    > > cranks) to determine changes in V02 max, AT, HR, V0, and RER during a 1 hour submaximal ride
    > > (~69% V02 max).
    > >
    > > Here are the numbers for Heartrate (HR) and Gross Efficiency (GE) before and after training.
    > >
    > > Time (minutes)
    > >
    > > PC Group 15 30 45 60
    > >
    > > HR Pre 154 155 156 157
    > >
    > > Post 141 140 141 141
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > GE (%)Pre 21.5 21.3 21.6 21.5
    > >
    > > Post 23.1 23.0 23.6 23.9
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Control Group
    > >
    > > HR Pre 166 165 166 163
    > >
    > > Post 159 159 159 160
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > GE (%) Pre 21.3 20.8 20.8 21.2
    > >
    > > Post 21.8 21.5 21.3 21.0
    > >
    > > Significant is the 2% increase in Gross Efficiency of the PC group.
    > >
    > > Phil Holman
     
  6. Racer X

    Racer X Guest

    Fair enough, but it's still a party school. And I stand by all my criticisms of that study.

    Little if any damage was done to my credibility by not knowing that some school (mis)named Miami
    University was located in southwestern Ohio. As a matter of fact, I think the name of the college is
    intentionally designed to deceive applicants into thinking the beach is only a 5 minute drive from
    their dorm.

    And I also hereby add the entire state of Ohio and all its colleges and universities contained
    within its state boundary to the official party school list. Now look what you've done.

    At least the U. of Miami has a football program and some hot cheerleaders, many with thong tanlines.

    involving work over time.

    Q.I.D.

    Racer X

    Carl Sundquist wrote:

    > "RACER X" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > > In addition, the University of Kansas and Miami University are both party schools and any
    > > "scientific study" out of these overglorified frat houses probably aren't going to be appearing
    > > in Nature anytime soon.
    > >
    >
    > I'm confident that people in southwestern Ohio laugh at dumbasses like you quite often.
    >
    > http://www.miami.muohio.edu/about_miami/index.cfm
    >
    > Dr. Jeffrey Aaron Potteiger Classification: faculty Title: Chair & Professor UniqueID: potteija
    > E-Mail Address: [email protected] delivered to [email protected] Division: VP - Provost
    > Department: Phys Educ Hlth Sport Studies Campus Address: Phys Educ Hlth & Sprt Studies
    > Phillips Hall, 106B Campus Phone: +1 513 529 2700
    >
    > The party school is the University of Miami.
     
  7. Nick Burns

    Nick Burns Guest

    "RACER X" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Fair enough, but it's still a party school. And I stand by all my
    criticisms of that
    > study.
    >
    > Little if any damage was done to my credibility by not knowing that some
    school (mis)named
    > Miami University was located in southwestern Ohio. As a matter of fact,
    I think the name
    > of the college is intentionally designed to deceive applicants into
    thinking the beach is
    > only a 5 minute drive from their dorm.

    Holy shit! You think people would enroll in a school before confirming which state it is located?

    >
    > And I also hereby add the entire state of Ohio and all its colleges and
    universities
    > contained within its state boundary to the official party school list.
    Now look what
    > you've done.

    Any college in the United States younger than 200 years is likely a party school.
     
  8. Sam

    Sam Guest

    I will withhold comment about the study until I can read the whole thing. For one thing, the report
    below does not provide confidence intervals or level of significance; 2% could be accidental. As
    for Racer X's comments on one aspect: both groups would have been training for those 6 weeks, not
    just the experimental group; otherwise, his comment would be accurate (I am making the assumption
    both were training as normal). 6 in each group is a small number; one of the common issues with
    exercise studies.

    Potteiger is a well-respected researcher with many peer review papers to his name. Do a PubMed
    search if you want. His credentials are just fine.

    It will probably not appear in NATURE, more likely (if it gets published) it will be in Medicine and
    Science in Sport and Exercise or maybe Journal of Biomechanics.

    "RACER X" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > HOLE MAN,
    >
    > Why would a person who wants to find out whether or not POWER CRANKS are better than regular
    > cranks introduce the highly variable noise that this study does?
    >
    > I could just as easily conclude from this data set that the reason why it showed a 2% increase in
    > "gross effiency" is because the subjects tested simply had an additional 6 weeks worth of training
    > under their belt. In
    no
    > way, shape, or form, could one conclude that the extra 2% gain was due solely to the use of Power
    > Cranks. In fact, the subjects claimed 2% gain could have just as easily have come from a 3-4%
    > increase in fitness output coupled to a decrease of 1-2% (caused by the Power Cranks), thereby
    > resulting in a 2% net gain.
    >
    > Also, no reputable scientist claims confidance in a study with an "n" number of only 6 subjects.
    >
    > In addition, the University of Kansas and Miami University are both party schools and any
    > "scientific study" out of these overglorified frat houses probably aren't going to be appearing in
    > Nature anytime soon.
    >
    > It was a nice infomercial though. One question: do Power Cranks come with

    >
    > Take care,
    >
    > Racer X
    >
    >
    >
    > Phil Holman wrote:
    >
    > > Here is a condensed preview of the numbers from the PC testing. The study was conducted by Mark
    > > D. Luttrell, Dept of Health, Sport and Exercise Science, University of Kansas and Jeffrey A.
    > > Pottteiger, Dept of Physical Education, Health and Sports Studies, Miami University.
    > >
    > > The effects of 6 weeks of training with PCs was examined for 6 cyclists (+6 with regular
    > > cranks) to determine changes in V02 max, AT, HR, V0, and RER during a 1 hour submaximal ride
    > > (~69% V02 max).
    > >
    > > Here are the numbers for Heartrate (HR) and Gross Efficiency (GE) before and after training.
    > >
    > > Time (minutes)
    > >
    > > PC Group 15 30 45 60
    > >
    > > HR Pre 154 155 156 157
    > >
    > > Post 141 140 141 141
    > >
    > > GE (%)Pre 21.5 21.3 21.6 21.5
    > >
    > > Post 23.1 23.0 23.6 23.9
    > >
    > > Control Group
    > >
    > > HR Pre 166 165 166 163
    > >
    > > Post 159 159 159 160
    > >
    > > GE (%) Pre 21.3 20.8 20.8 21.2
    > >
    > > Post 21.8 21.5 21.3 21.0
    > >
    > > Significant is the 2% increase in Gross Efficiency of the PC group.
    > >
    > > Phil Holman
     
  9. Sam

    Sam Guest

    "RACER X" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Fair enough, but it's still a party school. And I stand by all my
    criticisms of that
    > study.
    >
    > Little if any damage was done to my credibility by not knowing that some
    school (mis)named
    > Miami University was located in southwestern Ohio. As a matter of fact,
    I think the name
    > of the college is intentionally designed to deceive applicants into
    thinking the beach is
    > only a 5 minute drive from their dorm.
    >
    > And I also hereby add the entire state of Ohio and all its colleges and
    universities
    > contained within its state boundary to the official party school list.
    Now look what
    > you've done.
    >
    > At least the U. of Miami has a football program and some hot cheerleaders,
    many with thong
    > tanlines.

    Remember, (t)OSU beat UM back in January (married to a Buckeye alum).
    >

    studies of anything
    > involving work over time.
    >
    > Q.I.D.
    >
    > Racer X
    >
    > Carl Sundquist wrote:
    >
    > > "RACER X" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > >
    > > > In addition, the University of Kansas and Miami University are both
    party
    > > > schools and any "scientific study" out of these overglorified frat
    houses
    > > > probably aren't going to be appearing in Nature anytime soon.
    > > >
    > >
    > > I'm confident that people in southwestern Ohio laugh at dumbasses like
    you quite often.
    > >
    > > http://www.miami.muohio.edu/about_miami/index.cfm
    > >
    > > Dr. Jeffrey Aaron Potteiger Classification: faculty Title: Chair & Professor UniqueID: potteija
    > > E-Mail Address: [email protected] delivered to [email protected] Division: VP -
    > > Provost Department: Phys Educ Hlth Sport Studies Campus Address: Phys Educ Hlth & Sprt
    > > Studies Phillips Hall, 106B Campus Phone: +1 513 529 2700
    > >
    > > The party school is the University of Miami.
     
  10. Sam

    Sam Guest

    "Nick Burns" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "RACER X" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > Fair enough, but it's still a party school. And I stand by all my
    > criticisms of that
    > > study.
    > >
    > > Little if any damage was done to my credibility by not knowing that some
    > school (mis)named
    > > Miami University was located in southwestern Ohio. As a matter of
    fact,
    > I think the name
    > > of the college is intentionally designed to deceive applicants into
    > thinking the beach is
    > > only a 5 minute drive from their dorm.
    >
    > Holy shit! You think people would enroll in a school before confirming
    which
    > state it is located?
    >
    > >
    > > And I also hereby add the entire state of Ohio and all its colleges and
    > universities
    > > contained within its state boundary to the official party school list.
    > Now look what
    > > you've done.
    >
    > Any college in the United States younger than 200 years is likely a party school.

    Even some older than 200 years--University of Georgia and University of North Carolina can party
    well (both have good to excellent academic credentials within state universities)
     
  11. Phil Holman

    Phil Holman Guest

    "Sam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > I will withhold comment about the study until I can read the whole
    thing.
    > For one thing, the report below does not provide confidence intervals
    or
    > level of significance; 2% could be accidental. As for Racer X's
    comments
    > on one aspect: both groups would have been training for those 6
    weeks, not
    > just the experimental group; otherwise, his comment would be accurate
    (I am
    > making the assumption both were training as normal). 6 in each group
    is a
    > small number; one of the common issues with exercise studies.
    >
    > Potteiger is a well-respected researcher with many peer review papers
    to his
    > name. Do a PubMed search if you want. His credentials are just fine.
    >
    > It will probably not appear in NATURE, more likely (if it gets
    published) it
    > will be in Medicine and Science in Sport and Exercise or maybe Journal
    of
    > Biomechanics.

    I can email the entire article if you want. It's not a very good pdf file but readable.

    Phil Holman
     
  12. Robert Chung

    Robert Chung Guest

    Phil Holman wrote:
    >
    > Significant is the 2% increase in Gross Efficiency of the PC group.

    1. Anything about delta efficiency?
    2. Any other significant differences between groups?
     
  13. Racer X

    Racer X Guest

    Sam I am Green Eggs and Ham,

    This study also wasn't double-blind, and there is no real way that one can actually measure
    something as small as a 2% increase in "efficiency" with any reasonable degree of confidance that
    couldn't just as easily be ascribed to standard deviation or imprecision of the measuring equipment.

    As for making it into a journal, so did hundreds of studies that supposedly "proved" post-menopausal
    women benfitted from hormone replacement therapy. Now they are saying it's actually bad for them and
    all the science that went into it was never really good to begin with.

    This study reaks of junk science in many ways. The low n number itself of 12 was reason enough to
    not even conduct the study. The fact that he did it with 12 cyclists and is then trying to pawn off
    the results as being statistically significant is already bad news for his reputation.

    You are mistaken when you say the low number is merely a problem. It is a fatal problem.

    How much do you want to bet that these Power Cranks do as well as Biopace when all is said and done?

    Racer X

    Sam wrote:

    > I will withhold comment about the study until I can read the whole thing. For one thing, the
    > report below does not provide confidence intervals or level of significance; 2% could be
    > accidental. As for Racer X's comments on one aspect: both groups would have been training for
    > those 6 weeks, not just the experimental group; otherwise, his comment would be accurate (I am
    > making the assumption both were training as normal). 6 in each group is a small number; one of the
    > common issues with exercise studies.
    >
    > Potteiger is a well-respected researcher with many peer review papers to his name. Do a PubMed
    > search if you want. His credentials are just fine.
    >
    > It will probably not appear in NATURE, more likely (if it gets published) it will be in Medicine
    > and Science in Sport and Exercise or maybe Journal of Biomechanics.
    >
    > "RACER X" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > HOLE MAN,
    > >
    > > Why would a person who wants to find out whether or not POWER CRANKS are better than regular
    > > cranks introduce the highly variable noise that this study does?
    > >
    > > I could just as easily conclude from this data set that the reason why it showed a 2% increase
    > > in "gross effiency" is because the subjects tested simply had an additional 6 weeks worth of
    > > training under their belt. In
    > no
    > > way, shape, or form, could one conclude that the extra 2% gain was due solely to the use of
    > > Power Cranks. In fact, the subjects claimed 2% gain could have just as easily have come from a
    > > 3-4% increase in fitness output coupled to a decrease of 1-2% (caused by the Power Cranks),
    > > thereby resulting in a 2% net gain.
    > >
    > > Also, no reputable scientist claims confidance in a study with an "n" number of only 6 subjects.
    > >
    > > In addition, the University of Kansas and Miami University are both party schools and any
    > > "scientific study" out of these overglorified frat houses probably aren't going to be appearing
    > > in Nature anytime soon.
    > >
    > > It was a nice infomercial though. One question: do Power Cranks come with

    > >
    > > Take care,
    > >
    > > Racer X
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Phil Holman wrote:
    > >
    > > > Here is a condensed preview of the numbers from the PC testing. The study was conducted by
    > > > Mark D. Luttrell, Dept of Health, Sport and Exercise Science, University of Kansas and Jeffrey
    > > > A. Pottteiger, Dept of Physical Education, Health and Sports Studies, Miami University.
    > > >
    > > > The effects of 6 weeks of training with PCs was examined for 6 cyclists (+6 with regular
    > > > cranks) to determine changes in V02 max, AT, HR, V0, and RER during a 1 hour submaximal ride
    > > > (~69% V02 max).
    > > >
    > > > Here are the numbers for Heartrate (HR) and Gross Efficiency (GE) before and after training.
    > > >
    > > > Time (minutes)
    > > >
    > > > PC Group 15 30 45 60
    > > >
    > > > HR Pre 154 155 156 157
    > > >
    > > > Post 141 140 141 141
    > > >
    > > > GE (%)Pre 21.5 21.3 21.6 21.5
    > > >
    > > > Post 23.1 23.0 23.6 23.9
    > > >
    > > > Control Group
    > > >
    > > > HR Pre 166 165 166 163
    > > >
    > > > Post 159 159 159 160
    > > >
    > > > GE (%) Pre 21.3 20.8 20.8 21.2
    > > >
    > > > Post 21.8 21.5 21.3 21.0
    > > >
    > > > Significant is the 2% increase in Gross Efficiency of the PC group.
    > > >
    > > > Phil Holman
     
  14. Jim Martin

    Jim Martin Guest

    Interesting that they finally got this study published. What journal accepted it? When they
    presented the abstract at ACSM people lined up at the mic to bash the study. The moderator finally
    had to cut it off.

    "Phil Holman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Here is a condensed preview of the numbers from the PC testing. The study was conducted by Mark D.
    > Luttrell, Dept of Health, Sport and Exercise Science, University of Kansas and Jeffrey A.
    > Pottteiger, Dept of Physical Education, Health and Sports Studies, Miami University.
    >
    > The effects of 6 weeks of training with PCs was examined for 6 cyclists (+6 with regular
    > cranks) to determine changes in V02 max, AT, HR, V0, and RER during a 1 hour submaximal ride
    > (~69% V02 max).
    >
    > Here are the numbers for Heartrate (HR) and Gross Efficiency (GE) before and after training.
    >
    > Time (minutes)
    >
    > PC Group 15 30 45 60
    >
    > HR Pre 154 155 156 157
    >
    > Post 141 140 141 141
    >
    >
    >
    > GE (%)Pre 21.5 21.3 21.6 21.5
    >
    > Post 23.1 23.0 23.6 23.9
    >
    >
    >
    > Control Group
    >
    > HR Pre 166 165 166 163
    >
    > Post 159 159 159 160
    >
    >
    >
    > GE (%) Pre 21.3 20.8 20.8 21.2
    >
    > Post 21.8 21.5 21.3 21.0
    >
    > Significant is the 2% increase in Gross Efficiency of the PC group.
    >
    > Phil Holman
    >
    >

    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.522 / Virus Database: 320 - Release Date: 9/29/2003
     
  15. Phil Holman

    Phil Holman Guest

    "Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > Phil Holman wrote:
    > >
    > > Significant is the 2% increase in Gross Efficiency of the PC group.
    >
    > 1. Anything about delta efficiency?
    > 2. Any other significant differences between groups?

    If you send me your real email I'll send you a copy. Per Jim Martin's comment, this has not been
    published yet and according to the source of the data, this was scheduled to happen in November.
    According to Jim, it might be a challenge.

    Phil Holman
     
  16. Rk

    Rk Guest

    RACER X <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    > You are mistaken when you say the low number is merely a problem. It is a fatal problem.
    >
    > How much do you want to bet that these Power Cranks do as well as Biopace when all is said
    > and done?
    >
    > Racer X
    >
    >

    Biopace still has its advocates. The question is: are they as good as rotor Cranks? They are being
    used by some 2nd division pros, Spanish triathletes, et al. They look to be an eccentric cam device
    intended to eliminate the dead spot that Power Cranks emphasize for training.

    http://www.rotorbike.com/eng/home.htm
     
  17. Phil Holman

    Phil Holman Guest

    "Jim Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Interesting that they finally got this study published. What journal accepted it? When they
    > presented the abstract at ACSM people lined up
    at the
    > mic to bash the study. The moderator finally had to cut it off.

    Any of them named Racer X by chance. It hasn't been published yet so my original post was a fyi and
    this one is a sneak preview of the data. Anyone interested in a full copy of the article can email
    me (Racer X included).

    Thanks

    Phil Holman

    >
    >
    >
    > "Phil Holman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > Here is a condensed preview of the numbers from the PC testing. The study was conducted by Mark
    > > D. Luttrell, Dept of Health, Sport and Exercise Science, University of Kansas and Jeffrey A.
    > > Pottteiger,
    Dept
    > > of Physical Education, Health and Sports Studies, Miami University.
    > >
    > > The effects of 6 weeks of training with PCs was examined for 6
    cyclists
    > > (+6 with regular cranks) to determine changes in V02 max, AT, HR,
    V0,
    > > and RER during a 1 hour submaximal ride (~69% V02 max).
    > >
    > > Here are the numbers for Heartrate (HR) and Gross Efficiency (GE)
    before
    > > and after training.
    > >
    > > Time (minutes)
    > >
    > > PC Group 15 30 45 60
    > >
    > > HR Pre 154 155 156 157
    > >
    > > Post 141 140 141 141
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > GE (%)Pre 21.5 21.3 21.6 21.5
    > >
    > > Post 23.1 23.0 23.6 23.9
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Control Group
    > >
    > > HR Pre 166 165 166 163
    > >
    > > Post 159 159 159 160
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > GE (%) Pre 21.3 20.8 20.8 21.2
    > >
    > > Post 21.8 21.5 21.3 21.0
    > >
    > > Significant is the 2% increase in Gross Efficiency of the PC group.
    > >
    > > Phil Holman
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    > ---
    > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    > Version: 6.0.522 / Virus Database: 320 - Release Date: 9/29/2003
     
  18. Dan Connelly

    Dan Connelly Guest

    Power Cranks are training aids designed to improve pedal stroke with conventional circular cranks.
    They have little in common with BioPace, which was designed to accomodate poor pedal strokes.

    The moral of this study is it's a good idea to work on pedal stroke. One legged pedalling,
    low-cadence climbing, downhill spinning -- there are many approaches. This is just one.

    Dan

    RK wrote:
    > RACER X <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    >
    >
    >>You are mistaken when you say the low number is merely a problem. It is a fatal problem.
    >>
    >>How much do you want to bet that these Power Cranks do as well as Biopace when all is said
    >>and done?
    >>
    >>Racer X
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    > Biopace still has its advocates.
     
  19. Frank Day

    Frank Day Guest

    I think this is different than the original study they did, which i saw many years ago, which never
    got published (maybe now I know why). You, of course, are welcome to bash it again, if you see fit,
    after it is published. Of course, now you will have to put your thoughts in writing, affix a name to
    the criticism, and let your criticism undergo editorial scrutiny and be forever embarrased if your
    criticism is based solely on bias.

    Was the criticism of the original study you heard similar to the criticisms heard about "cold
    fusion" (impossible) or related to the methods and design of the study?

    Frank "Jim Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > Interesting that they finally got this study published. What journal accepted it? When they
    > presented the abstract at ACSM people lined up at the mic to bash the study. The moderator finally
    > had to cut it off.
     
  20. Jim Martin

    Jim Martin Guest

    "Phil Holman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Jim Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > Interesting that they finally got this study published. What journal accepted it? When they
    > > presented the abstract at ACSM people lined up
    > at the
    > > mic to bash the study. The moderator finally had to cut it off.
    >
    > Any of them named Racer X by chance.

    If memory serves those at the mic included Jeff Broker (then the head of biomechanics at USOC), Dave
    Martin (Austalian Inst of Sport), a few others, and me.

    > It hasn't been published yet

    Yes, but what journal WILL it apear in?

    Cheers,

    Jim

    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.522 / Virus Database: 320 - Release Date: 9/29/2003
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...