Data (was PowerCranks Study)

[Nick Burns]

"Phil Holman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "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

Will you send a copy to me please? This hotmail address is good for 1 MB. If it is larger, please
let me know and I will give you another address.

Thanks

 

[Jim Martin]

"Frank Day" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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?

If I recall correctly there were a three major concerns.

1) The study was not hypothesis driven. That is to say, the authors had no reason, based on existing
scientific literature, to hypothesize that training with the power cranks would change
efficiency. Cyclists may wish to think that pedaling biomechanics will be improved and that the
change in biomechanics will improve efficiency. That is wishful thinking. No one has ever
reported a link between pedaling technique and efficiency. Indeed, there is little to improve
because almost no one produces substantial negative power during the flexion phase at pedaling
rates of under 100rpm.

2) If they had tried to express a hypothesis it could only be centered on a notion that pulling up
is inherently more metabolically efficient than pushing down: that muscle that flex the leg are
more efficient than those that extend the leg. No one has ever reported such a difference and
there is no reason to hypothesize one.

3) The procedures for calibrating the metabolic system were not well explained.

In my opinion the most reasonable explanation for their findings is that something happened to their
metabolic system between pre and post testing.

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

 

[Frank Day]

Journal of Sports and Conditioning Research.

"Jim Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message > Yes, but what journal WILL it apear in?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jim

 

[Frank Day]

I am truly amazed. Rotor cranks does have some pros using them. However, not to be a name dropper
but has anybody looked at some of the names of pros using PC's. Probably becaause PC's have paid
them a lot of money to do so - NOT! Or, they have been taken in by the hype? Or, perhaps they see
them as actually doing something useful? Perhaps one of those two, but you will have to ask them.

Wonder why I keep getting emails from Belgium pros saying J. Musseuw is telling them they need to
get on PC's? Not easy for me to hypnotize someone who doesn't speak much (if any) english.

Are they as good as Rotor Cranks. That really isn't the question, becaause these two products do
different things. The question is: Are they as good as they claim? And, if not, how good are they?
Or, are they not worth anything?

This study, I think, goes some towards answering those questions.

Frank

[email protected] (RK) wrote in message
> 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

 

[Phil Holman]

"chris" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Any chance we can get the full citation? I'd like to review the full
paper.
>
> Chris

Chris, I've tried to email it to you but it comes back .... This is an automatically generated
Delivery Status Notification.

Delivery to the following recipients failed.

[email protected]

Phil Holman

 

[Chris]

RACER X <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Dude,
>
> I already wrote the only review that matters. Why try to reinvent the wheel?
>
> Racer X
>
Because, Dude, chowderhead's like you try to make us all think you now **** from Shinola, but
really you just don't want the more learned to make their own judgements for fear they'll call you
on your idiocy.

Now, if memory serves me, I believe a friend of mine reviewed this paper, or a related one, about a
year and a 1/2 ago. Perhaps I can dig it up.

BTW: You wouldn't be related to Awesomebikedude?

 

[Frank Day]

Why don't you just wait until you can read the study then criticize what was finally published. I
think you will find most of the concerns you addressed adequately covered, except for, of course,
the bias that there really can't be any improvement over current pedaling technique ("because almost
no one produces substantial negative power during the flexion phase at pedaling rates under 100
rpm") so any demonstrated improvement must come from measurement error and I don't believe they
reproduced the technical manuals for the equipment they used regarding specific calibration
procedures beyond commenting on calibration protocol. Although I am sure the authors could provide
that to you if that criticism remains after you read the article.

Frank

"Jim Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> If I recall correctly there were a three major concerns.
>
> 1) The study was not hypothesis driven. That is to say, the authors had no reason, based on
> existing scientific literature, to hypothesize that training with the power cranks would change
> efficiency. Cyclists may wish to think that pedaling biomechanics will be improved and that the
> change in biomechanics will improve efficiency. That is wishful thinking. No one has ever
> reported a link between pedaling technique and efficiency. Indeed, there is little to improve
> because almost no one produces substantial negative power during the flexion phase at pedaling
> rates of under 100rpm.
>
> 2) If they had tried to express a hypothesis it could only be centered on a notion that pulling up
> is inherently more metabolically efficient than pushing down: that muscle that flex the leg are
> more efficient than those that extend the leg. No one has ever reported such a difference and
> there is no reason to hypothesize one.
>
> 3) The procedures for calibrating the metabolic system were not well explained.
>
> In my opinion the most reasonable explanation for their findings is that something happened to
> their metabolic system between pre and post testing.
>
> 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

 

[Jim Martin]

"Frank Day" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Why don't you just wait until you can read the study then criticize what was finally published.

I only wrote what I did because, two lines above in this thread, you asked me about the criticisms.
(See: 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?)

Did you not want an answer till later?

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

 

[Frank Day]

Jim,

Surely you are not saying that there is no evidence in the existing scientific literature that
cycling efficiency is not important or cannot be changed. I think the literature supports that there
is a wide range of cycling efficiency documented in cyclists varying usually from about 16% to 23%
and, rarely, higher. I think it also shows that better cyclists typically (but not always) have
higher efficiencies than less expert cyclists. Is there any evidence that cycling efficiency cannot
be changed (improved)? I think it is generally accepted that improving efficiency is a laudable goal
- I have never heard anyone advocate reducing efficiency.

If there is a product that claims to increase cycling efficiency, one does not have to have a
mechanism by which it works (and, in fact, can believe there is none and the claims are bogus), in
order to study the product and the claims, in order to debunk them. In choosing to do the study the
researcher can choose either the hypothesis that the device works or the hypothesis that it doesn't.
The data is then analyzed with respect to the hypothesis. Based upon the statistical significance of
the data (assuming a good study design and no bias is introduced into the study) the hypothesis is
either "proven" or "disproven" to most people.

Unfortunately for the debunkers, if the claims are substantiated by the study, then one should not
claim the study is bogus simply because the researchers didn't propose a mechanism beforehand.
Rather, the question should be either: (for the non-believers) Can the study be improved and is the
study repeatable? or (for the believers) What is the mechanism?

Frank

"Jim Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> 1) The study was not hypothesis driven. That is to say, the authors had no reason, based on
> existing scientific literature, to hypothesize that training with the power cranks would change
> efficiency. Cyclists may wish to think that pedaling biomechanics will be improved and that the
> change in biomechanics will improve efficiency. That is wishful thinking. No one has ever
> reported a link between pedaling technique and efficiency. Indeed, there is little to improve
> because almost no one produces substantial negative power during the flexion phase at pedaling
> rates of under 100rpm.

 

[Phil Holman]

Frank Day wrote
>
> Unfortunately for the debunkers, if the claims are substantiated by the study, then one should not
> claim the study is bogus simply because the researchers didn't propose a mechanism beforehand.
> Rather, the question should be either: (for the non-believers) Can the study be improved and is
> the study repeatable? or (for the believers) What is the mechanism?

I'm interested in the mechanism but is improved efficiency only one of several possible hypotheses.
FWIW my pet theory was the utilization of additional muscle mass in the pedaling action would
increase max aerobic output. Effectiveness over efficiency every time otherwise we'd all be riding
around at 60rpm. Doesn't the highest V02 max occur in sports that utilize whole body musculature
(e.g. X country skiing).

Phil Holman

 

[Phil Holman]

"Jim Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Frank Day" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Why don't you just wait until you can read the study then criticize what was finally published.
>
> I only wrote what I did because, two lines above in this thread, you
asked
> me about the criticisms. (See: 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?)
>
> Did you not want an answer till later?

I think Frank is justified in his response due to your first message into this thread. I appreciate
the insight you have provided and hope you continue the discussion both now and later.

Phil Holman

 

[Rk]

[email protected] (Frank Day) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

>
> Are they as good as Rotor Cranks. That really isn't the question, becaause these two products do
> different things. The question is: Are they as good as they claim? And, if not, how good are they?
> Or, are they not worth anything?

Let me rephrase the question: which one will make you go faster, if either? What is curious is that
one trains to overcome the "problem", the other compensates for the "problem", much like Biopace. It
is conceivable power cranks force one to train properly, but

>
> This study, I think, goes some towards answering those questions.
>

Not as presented, we don't know the statistical significance, which means the apparent positive
results could have been due to chance.

A problem I have, having had an inside view of this sort of testing, is that if you pay me to do a
study, I can get the results you want, or something that seems to support them. This is why it takes
many studies before something becomes accepted. But does Museew really email other pros telling them
they have to use the crank??

> Frank
>
>
> [email protected] (RK) wrote in message
> > 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

 

[Donald Munro]

RK wrote:

> A problem I have, having had an inside view of this sort of testing, is that if you pay me to do a
> study, I can get the results you want, or something that seems to support them. This is why it
> takes many studies before something becomes accepted. But does Museew really email other pros
> telling them they have to use the crank??

No, he e-mails them reminders to visit their vet for treatment of their tubes for wasp stings.

 

[Frank Day]

Jim,

I understood that to be the original criticism and that is what i asked, but I took your answer to
indicate there could not be any acceptable hypothesis to study these cranks at anytime because there
was no scientific literature to suggest that they should work. If that criticism was present then I
suspect it would be present now. My remarks, I guess, would mostly be applicable to the earlier
criticism of the earlier paper and I was premature in anticipating your criticisms of this one.

My comments were also directed to the scientific research and publishing process in general, in
that, sometimes bias enters the review process just as much as it enters the study process and
efforts should be made to remove bias in the scientific process wherever it exists.

There can be lots of reasons not to publish a paper, mostly involving bad design and/or data
collection, but also involving inadequate discussion of results or having little relevance to the
target audience. Those are valid and can be corrected by the author. If studies are expected to be
perfect, however, there would be no published studies. Unfortunately, the author can do nothing to
correct bias on the part of the gate keeper.

Frank

"Jim Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> "Frank Day" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Why don't you just wait until you can read the study then criticize what was finally published.
>
> I only wrote what I did because, two lines above in this thread, you asked me about the
> criticisms. (See: 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?)
>
> Did you not want an answer till later?
>
> 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

 

[Racer X]

Like I said Frank, using an "n" number of 12 is already such a significant fault of the study
design, that all you people touting its conclusions are just reinforcing your total lack of
understanding of items like standard deviation, statistics in general, and imprecision of measuring
equipment.

All your other discussions are moot because you'll NEVER convince any real scientist that using 12
subjects can generate meaningful statistics of any kind.

Like I said, it's a fatal flaw and any further discussions of this study that attempt to gloss over
the "n" number problem cannot pass the laugh test.

Racer "Johnny Cochran" X

Frank Day wrote:

> 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.

 

[Racer X]

I can offer an objective critique of the study. I'm not going to tell you Power Cranks don't work.
All I'm going to tell you is that this study likely can't prove they do.

So I'm not the satanic, reckless debunker you people have me pegged for. I'm just trying to follow
the Scientific Method.

Racer X

Phil Holman wrote:

> "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
> >

 

[Racer X]

Frank 24 Hours,

How does the study address the fatal flaw of using an "n" number of 12 subjects (6 in each group)?

Answer: it doesn't.

All your other debates about this study are moot because the n number problem is catastrophic
to any of its ostensible data and conclusions. And any scientist who would even attempt to pawn
off conclusions on a study that uses only 12 subjects is clearly trespassing into the realm of
junk science.

comedy act than an experiment.

I suggest you speak to some real researchers and statisticians about this fact and see
what they say.

If you flip a coin 12 times, do you really think the statistics you can get on 1 trial are going to
be ANYWHERE near as accurate as if you flipped that coin 200 times?

Thanks,

Racer X

Frank Day wrote:

> Why don't you just wait until you can read the study then criticize what was finally published. I
> think you will find most of the concerns you addressed adequately covered, except for, of course,
> the bias that there really can't be any improvement over current pedaling technique ("because
> almost no one produces substantial negative power during the flexion phase at pedaling rates under
> 100 rpm") so any demonstrated improvement must come from measurement error and I don't believe
> they reproduced the technical manuals for the equipment they used regarding specific calibration
> procedures beyond commenting on calibration protocol. Although I am sure the authors could provide
> that to you if that criticism remains after you read the article.
>
> Frank
>
> "Jim Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > If I recall correctly there were a three major concerns.
> >
> > 1) The study was not hypothesis driven. That is to say, the authors had no reason, based on
> > existing scientific literature, to hypothesize that training with the power cranks would
> > change efficiency. Cyclists may wish to think that pedaling biomechanics will be improved and
> > that the change in biomechanics will improve efficiency. That is wishful thinking. No one has
> > ever reported a link between pedaling technique and efficiency. Indeed, there is little to
> > improve because almost no one produces substantial negative power during the flexion phase at
> > pedaling rates of under 100rpm.
> >
> > 2) If they had tried to express a hypothesis it could only be centered on a notion that pulling
> > up is inherently more metabolically efficient than pushing down: that muscle that flex the
> > leg are more efficient than those that extend the leg. No one has ever reported such a
> > difference and there is no reason to hypothesize one.
> >
> > 3) The procedures for calibrating the metabolic system were not well explained.
> >
> > In my opinion the most reasonable explanation for their findings is that something happened to
> > their metabolic system between pre and post testing.
> >
> > 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

 

[Frank Day]

It seems to me, from a scientific point of view (and from the point of view of the non-believers)
that the first thing that needs to be proven is this question: Is there any worth to these things
over what can be done without them.

Once that is accepted then several questions arise such as how much potential benefit is there, what
is the optimum way to achieve that benefit and what is the mechanism or mechanisms of the benefit.

Frank

"Phil Holman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> I'm interested in the mechanism but is improved efficiency only one of several possible
> hypotheses. FWIW my pet theory was the utilization of additional muscle mass in the pedaling
> action would increase max aerobic output. Effectiveness over efficiency every time otherwise we'd
> all be riding around at 60rpm. Doesn't the highest V02 max occur in sports that utilize whole body
> musculature (e.g. X country skiing).
>
> Phil Holman

 

[Racer X]

Frank,

Your third paragraph below fails to mention that a study that uses 12 subjects cannot generate any
credible/reliable/accurate statistics. Yur standard deviation is HUGE, and far beyond acceptable for
someonce concluding a 2% "gain." The standard deviation is much larger than 2%.

Consequently, this study never should have even been done with an n number of 12.

There's no way around this fault. And I'm gonna have to ask you people to desist from engaging in
further superfluous debate on this study that treats the fatal n number flaw as if it can be painted
over like some rust on an El Camino.

All this talk about other possible flaws of the study that do not menton the n number of 12 is
basically an insult to anybody with a degree in science.

I won't patronize it.

Racer X

Frank Day wrote:

> Jim,
>
> I understood that to be the original criticism and that is what i asked, but I took your answer
> to indicate there could not be any acceptable hypothesis to study these cranks at anytime because
> there was no scientific literature to suggest that they should work. If that criticism was
> present then I suspect it would be present now. My remarks, I guess, would mostly be applicable
> to the earlier criticism of the earlier paper and I was premature in anticipating your criticisms
> of this one.
>
> My comments were also directed to the scientific research and publishing process in general, in
> that, sometimes bias enters the review process just as much as it enters the study process and
> efforts should be made to remove bias in the scientific process wherever it exists.
>
> There can be lots of reasons not to publish a paper, mostly involving bad design and/or data
> collection, but also involving inadequate discussion of results or having little relevance to the
> target audience. Those are valid and can be corrected by the author. If studies are expected to be
> perfect, however, there would be no published studies. Unfortunately, the author can do nothing to
> correct bias on the part of the gate keeper.
>
> Frank
>
> "Jim Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > "Frank Day" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Why don't you just wait until you can read the study then criticize what was finally
> > > published.
> >
> > I only wrote what I did because, two lines above in this thread, you asked me about the
> > criticisms. (See: 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?)
> >
> > Did you not want an answer till later?
> >
> > 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

 

[Frank Day]

[email protected] (RK) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Frank Day) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>
> >
> > Are they as good as Rotor Cranks. That really isn't the question, becaause these two products do
> > different things. The question is: Are they as good as they claim? And, if not, how good are
> > they? Or, are they not worth anything?

If one had to choose between the two I think PC's will give a better improvement. However, they do
two different things. One of the people with extensive both has stated he sees one as a performance
enhancer and the other as a training enhancer.

I believe PC's are VERY good at improving performance. However, up until this study (the one we are
talking about that hasn't been published yet), there has been no proof (other than anecdotal
evidence) that they do any anything, let alone how much. Let us first establish that they do
something positive then we can talk degree and mechanism. Otherwise, the same people come in with
the same arguments and these threads get very tedious.

>
> Let me rephrase the question: which one will make you go faster, if either? What is curious is
> that one trains to overcome the "problem", the other compensates for the "problem", much like
> Biopace. It is conceivable power cranks force one to train properly, but
>
As stated above, the two devices do different things and are not necessarily incompatible. While
anecdotal reports of RC's have been very positive, the published studies thus far have shown little
improvement. The RC people think this has a lot to do with study design. Possibly.
> >
> > This study, I think, goes some towards answering those questions.
> >
>
> Not as presented, we don't know the statistical significance, which means the apparent positive
> results could have been due to chance.

The results reported were statistically significant within and between groups for several measured
parameters. But I don't want to get into details before the study is published.
>
> A problem I have, having had an inside view of this sort of testing, is that if you pay me to do a
> study, I can get the results you want, or something that seems to support them. This is why it
> takes many studies before something becomes accepted. But does Museew really email other pros
> telling them they have to use the crank??

No one paid this group to do this study (although I did provide one of the authors a pair of cranks
to use for the study). Of course, one must look closely at the study design to see if any bias can
be detected. Also, it will be interesting to see if the results can be repeated by other
reseaarchers or do they get a different result. That is the true test.

I have no idea if Museeuw emails other pros about the cranks. Further, I have never spoken with
Museeuw (I don't think he speaks much english) so I have no clue as to how he trains on the pair of
cranks he has. What I do get is emails from pros telling me Musseuw told them they needed to get on
the cranks.

Frank
>
> > Frank
> >
> >
> > [email protected] (RK) wrote in message
> > > 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