ECSS - Congress



fergie said:
You? Well where do I start:D

If a lefty lost his left hand then he would be motivated to learn to use the right pretty quick.

That's another factor in the Gimmickcrank studies where you would expect the novelty would lead to bigger gains in the experimental group and the control group has no novelty (low motivation) so you would expect fewer gains which paints an even bleaker picture for the Gimmickcrank as an effective training tool.

Just because someone loses a hand doesn't mean that despite all the motivation in the world, that they're gonna be writing with it proficiently anytime soon.

One could quite easily say that if you relied on novelty to motivate you for training that you should just pack up and quit.

One ride on powercranks dispells all notions of 'novelty' as a motivational factor. It's like saying to your riders "get better or the motivational beating will begin." One week on them and you'd still be wondering "wtf am I doing on these, this f%$king hurts" and "thank Christ there's a 11 weeks left on that money back guarentee"
 
roadhouse said:
points to ponder, mental as attributed to muscular strength

From mental power to muscle power--gaining strengt... [Neuropsychologia. 2004] - PubMed result

you might want to take a second look at that fergie, it stated 12 weeks of training...and that was just for the pinky finger...:)

Cav wants to tell you something.

par3206415_600.jpg


... and from the English to American translation we aint talkin' "peace out" either.

How 'bout them fingers?
 
swampy1970 said:
Cav wants to tell you something.

How 'bout them fingers?

Wasn't he reminding everybody it was stage 2 of the Tour de Romandie & he was the winner?.
 
fergie said:
Why would people waste their times doing this? The Bohm study showed that the trained cyclist subjects pedalling was altered within the time frame of the study. This alteration led to worse performance compared to the control group. None of the studies reported subjects being unable to complete the prescribed training. Guess you have to be retarded or alcoholic to take longer. Fernandez-Pena (2009) found altered muscle patterns in a similar short period of use and after subjects went back to normal cranks the adaptations were rapidly lost.


Quotes from "Bicycling '95"

"Even the best cyclists can benefit from enhancing pedal dynamics. Armstrong is a case in point. He has tremendous genetics and his results speak volumes ('93 world champion and a Tour de France stage winner). But the good athlete always looks for improvement and Lance's pedaling technique was an area in need of upgrading. In the '93 Tour DuPont, Armstrong's battle with the eventual winner Alcala was a study in contrast. In the final stage time trial Alcala had made up a 2-minute deficit early and smoothly rode past a laboring Armstrong. While Lance thrashed, Alcala pedaled with an elegant smoothness that defied the effort. The style masters always make it look easy. Taking note of this weakness in his rising star, coach Chris Carmichael prescribed two drills, one legged pedaling and the old-school method of improving spin--fixed-gear riding."--------------------"Armstrong has matured greatly in his 3-year pro career. He is remarkably aggressive on the bike when he has to be, unleashing an almost savage climbing style with his legs driving down into the pedals and his face contorted"
 
Wow. A quote from "Bicycling." Dang it, iffin' that ain't proof of somethin', then what is?
 
Chapeau! said:
Chris Carmichael doesn't know his stuff?.

Oh, I see. You think the "appeal to authority" argument works. Carmichael is one coach. If nothing else should be obvious from this thread it's that not all coaches think and believe the same. Moreover, what Carmichael "thinks" is not conclusive evidence of anything. Also, the comparison between Armstrong and Alcala is completely subjective and contains no evidence as to why Alcala out performed Armstrong in a particular race. It can't rule out superior conditioning, higher power output, or anything for that matter.

One thing that's been missing in a lot of posts in this thread has been objectivity. There's a lot of subjective commentary that offers nothing more suggestions and assumptions. Armstrong's "technique" has been mentioned a lot without there be a single study that gives any objective insight whatsoever into Armstrong's technique. Arguments like "the body can adapt" or the "the body could do this" are just throw away arguments.
 
swampy1970 said:
However, just in the same way that you change how you pull up, you also change how you push, or should I say pull, down.


Thanks to Powercranks you are now able to get your shoe beneath the pedal on the downstroke? Across the top, downstroke, across the bottom, upstroke: Answer the question, after a years training, in which of these four areas do PC's increase crank torque beyond that of regular cranks.
 
alienator said:
Carmichael is one coach. If nothing else should be obvious from this thread it's that not all coaches think and believe the same. Moreover, what Carmichael "thinks" is not conclusive evidence of anything.

Chris Carmichael is more than qualified to say what works & what doesn't.

Yes, not all coaches don't think and believe the same BUT not all coaches have engineered a 7-time Tour winner.

Don't you forget it.
 
Chapeau! said:
Wasn't he reminding everybody it was stage 2 of the Tour de Romandie & he was the winner?.

Erm... No.

To get the correct "across the pond" translation, you'd probably end up thinking that he'd won stage one too. ;)
 
n crowley said:
Thanks to Powercranks you are now able to get your shoe beneath the pedal on the downstroke? Across the top, downstroke, across the bottom, upstroke: Answer the question, after a years training, in which of these four areas do PC's increase crank torque beyond that of regular cranks.

I don't know if I actually increase torque more... Well, I must I guess, I pedal a little slower and put out more power so I could assume that I do. Where in the pedal stroke? No idea...

The only thing that feels majorly different is that I use my hamstrings more to "pull down" my leg during the latter half of the downstroke. I no longer feel that the quads are fighting to get the last quarter of the 'down stroke' done because I no longer feel the need to push that far down. Given that my pedal is attached to my foot and my foot is part of me I don't really care what the pedal is doing. I know where it is and it really isn't going anywhere... ;) My pedals don't become fatigued through effort - so I'll continue to think about my little leggies.

Foot under the pedal - only you could think of that one Norm. Only you...
 
fergie said:
Back to more muscle = better. Do they do an "Exercise Physiology for Dummies" edition???

Did I say I was using more muscle or that I was using a different and maybe more suitable muscle for the job?

I suggest "English for dummies" in your case....
 
Chapeau! said:
Chris Carmichael is more than qualified to say what works & what doesn't.

Yes, not all coaches don't think and believe the same BUT not all coaches have engineered a 7-time Tour winner.

Don't you forget it.

I got the impression that Carmichael was more of a public front to Lances training but not the guy responsible for the majority of his coaching.
 
fergs said:
Back to more muscle = better. Do they do an "Exercise Physiology for Dummies" edition???

Not more muscle fergs, more motor unit recruitment, stronger impulses & higher contraction rates to the muscles doing the work.
 
swampy1970 said:
I don't know if I actually increase torque more... Well, I must I guess, I pedal a little slower and put out more power so I could assume that I do. Where in the pedal stroke? No idea...

The only thing that feels majorly different is that I use my hamstrings more to "pull down" my leg during the latter half of the downstroke. I no longer feel that the quads are fighting to get the last quarter of the 'down stroke' done because I no longer feel the need to push that far down. Given that my pedal is attached to my foot and my foot is part of me I don't really care what the pedal is doing. I know where it is and it really isn't going anywhere... ;) My pedals don't become fatigued through effort - so I'll continue to think about my little leggies.

And all because---an engineer, despite Coyle's research, conveniently believed and convinced numerous gullible victims such as yourself that PC's circular style could increase their power output by a possible 40%, without the slightest explanation as to how where or when this power increase was likely to occur. The problem with circular pedalling is that your weakest muscles are doing what for them is maximal work for minimal torque, noticeably weakening your downstroke in the process. My linear semi-circular technique does exactly what it says on the tin/can by converting 11-2 o'c of the pedalling circle to maximal torque. Now there you have a guaranteed unknown but obvious very significant power increase from a set of cheap standard cranks.
 
n crowley said:
And all because---an engineer, despite Coyle's research, conveniently believed and convinced numerous gullible victims such as yourself that PC's circular style could increase their power output by a possible 40%, without the slightest explanation as to how where or when this power increase was likely to occur. The problem with circular pedalling is that your weakest muscles are doing what for them is maximal work for minimal torque, noticeably weakening your downstroke in the process. My linear semi-circular technique does exactly what it says on the tin/can by converting 11-2 o'c of the pedalling circle to maximal torque. Now there you have a guaranteed unknown but obvious very significant power increase from a set of cheap standard cranks.


how do you know how weak a muscle is until you use it? overall you are stronger, leaner, more precise entity if you use more muscles, wouldn't you think? and i'm not talking on the bike alone either which is where it's at for me, precision everywhere, running, walking, fighting, digesting food, sex with multiple women at the same time. and I don't see how using some muscles that were pretty much dormant before while pedaling a bike on regular cranks is taking anything away from the quads because you are using a different set on ic's to pull down, back and up. How does that take from the quads?

btw crowley, did you invent this linear thingamagigamabodeling technique?
 
n crowley said:
My linear semi-circular technique does exactly what it says on the tin/can by converting 11-2 o'c of the pedalling circle to maximal torque.


Can you show any force/power data from someone accomplished in linear pedaling to support this claim?
 
n crowley said:
The problem with circular pedalling is that your weakest muscles are doing what for them is maximal work for minimal torque, noticeably weakening your downstroke in the process.

Your hamstrings are weak muscles?. :confused::confused::confused: You got me stumped there.

Also, cycling as a whole is a "back" dominant event, the glutes taking the brunt. The hams are at the "back".

Thankgod I've got more than 2 brain cells.