ECSS - Congress



swampy1970 said:
Somewhere between 3 and 7. ;)

Pulling at 3?. Wowzers, thats some early a$$ pulling.

On my regular cranks it starts around 7 or 8, maybe even 9.
 
Nice, away for two weeks and you guys have got further than anecdote and personal experience.

As you were:rolleyes:
 
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...:)

A linear improvement in strength. The more you do the stronger you get. Not exactly rocket science.

While not as good as physical training experimental groups saw an increase in strength from visualising muscular contractions. There you go Roadie, all you need to do to is visualise riding Gimmickcranks to see an improvement. You may not get the full 40% but saved you a Grand :cool:
 
fergie said:
A linear improvement in strength. The more you do the stronger you get. Not exactly rocket science.

While not as good as physical training experimental groups saw an increase in strength from visualising muscular contractions. There you go Roadie, all you need to do to is visualise riding Gimmickcranks to see an improvement. You may not get the full 40% but saved you a Grand :cool:

Visualising muscular contractions.

LMFAO.

I have it all wrong. Instead of busting my balls in the gym, all I had to do all along was sit on the crapper for a few hours.
 
Chapeau! said:
Visualising muscular contractions.

LMFAO.

I have it all wrong. Instead of busting my balls in the gym, all I had to do all along was sit on the crapper for a few hours.

Yes, the futility of cherry picking research abstracts from Pubmed. Little finger abduction as well. Not really of that much relevance unless one goes to the odd Star Trek Convention.
 
fergie said:
Yes, the futility of cherry picking research abstracts from Pubmed. Little finger abduction as well. Not really of that much relevance unless one goes to the odd Star Trek Convention.

Someone stole your fingers? I'd hate to have my fingers abducted...

Since you're so frequently touting your years of education can you actually get the words right, Fergie, or would that be a little too much to ask?
 
Is your computer drunk as well, works fine for me.

I was first taught abduction in High School. From there...

1993 Coaching NZ Level 1 Coaching Course
1993 Coaching NZ Level 2 Coaching Course
1997 University of Otago SPMX103 Anatomy
2009 CPIT ASAP100 Anatomy and Physiology
2009 CPIT ASIB100 Introduction to Biomechanics
2010 University of Otago SPMX710 Sports Ergonomics

You may want to start with Anatomy for Dummies.

Heh, perhaps my computer is drunk as well, doesn't work from my post but does in my quote from Swampy's reply. Nevertheless the concept of abduction (kinesiology defn)does exist. Is that what Chaps refers to as a side step Swampy???
 
fergie said:
Is your computer drunk as well, works fine for me.

I was first taught abduction in High School. From there...

1993 Coaching NZ Level 1 Coaching Course
1993 Coaching NZ Level 2 Coaching Course
1997 University of Otago SPMX103 Anatomy
2009 CPIT ASAP100 Anatomy and Physiology
2009 CPIT ASIB100 Introduction to Biomechanics
2010 University of Otago SPMX710 Sports Ergonomics

You may want to start with Anatomy for Dummies.

Heh, perhaps my computer is drunk as well, doesn't work from my post but does in my quote from Swampy's reply. Nevertheless the concept of abduction (kinesiology defn)does exist. Is that what Chaps refers to as a side step Swampy???

I'm about as drunk as you are thin... oh wait, I'm not drunk.

That link didn't work and you didn't get the humour. Boo hoo... bite me.

Chapeau brings the fail again.
 
swampy1970 said:
That link didn't work and you didn't get the humour. Boo hoo... bite me.

Sorry I forgot to laugh at you getting it wrong again.

If I did bite you would I taste alcohol?
 
Heres on for you fergs.

Twin #1 & Twin #2.

Twin #1 trains solely on regular cranks & has become very efficient on just the downstroke portion of the pedal stroke through neural adaptation, activating mainly the quads & glutes.

Twin #2 trains on regular cranks & supplements with PowerCranks & has become very efficient on both the downstroke & upstroke portion of the pedal stroke through neural adaptation, activating mainly the quads, glutes, hamstrings, hip flexors & too a greater extent than regular cranks alone, calves & shins..

Both have the same VO2 & body weight.

Over a 10,000m track race, Which twin wins? & Why?.
 
If they are doing the same quantity of training then rider A has prepared more specifically for the challenge.

If VO2max is equal between the two then rider A will have better trained the muscle fibres he will use to race while rider B will have trained more muscle, however these fibres are not used in competition. Bohm, 2008 and Fernandez-Pena et al, 2009 have both shown that Gimmickcranks change the muscle firing patterns compared to normal cranks. Cross Country Skiers have the highest V02max's because their exercise trains the upper and lower body aerobically but having the highest volume of trained muscle doesn't mean they could jump on a bike and school the well trained cyclist at any point.

Another example of more is not better, specific is better. Twin A for me!
 
Chapeau! said:
Heres on for you fergs.

Twin #1 & Twin #2.

Twin #1 trains solely on regular cranks & has become very efficient on just the downstroke portion of the pedal stroke through neural adaptation, activating mainly the quads & glutes.

Twin #2 trains on regular cranks & supplements with PowerCranks & has become very efficient on both the downstroke & upstroke portion of the pedal stroke through neural adaptation, activating mainly the quads, glutes, hamstrings, hip flexors & too a greater extent than regular cranks alone, calves & shins..

Both have the same VO2 & body weight.

Over a 10,000m track race, Which twin wins? & Why?.

How long do they have to train? If less that two months, twin #1 for sure. If after three, #2.

... and I can honestly say that my calves get much less grief post-PC than before.
 
swampy1970 said:
Nope... just steel toed boots.

Ha ha that's tough, make threats over the Internet to a guy who lives thousands of miles away.

Nice, two answers. One opinion and one backed up with physiological rationale and references.

Always a class act.
 
fergs said:
If VO2max is equal between the two then rider A will have better trained the muscle fibres he will use to race while rider B will have trained more muscle, however these fibres are not used in competition.

Why wouldn't those fibers be used in competition?. Twin #2 has used them in training, and neural adaptation has been accomplished?.

Twin #2 trains on regular cranks & supplements with PowerCranks.

fergs said:
Bohm, 2008 and Fernandez-Pena et al, 2009 have both shown that Gimmickcranks change the muscle firing patterns compared to normal cranks.

But remember, Twin #2 trains on regular cranks & supplements with Gimmickcranks.


fergs said:
Cross Country Skiers have the highest V02max's because their exercise trains the upper and lower body aerobically but having the highest volume of trained muscle.... doesn't mean they could jump on a bike and school the well trained cyclist at any point.

What does this tell you about Twin #2?. Who trains the highest volume of trained muscle over Twin #1?.

fergs said:
Another example of more is not better, specific is better.

Well, with regards to cross Country Skiing, then yes, more muscle is better. Why can't we stake the claim for cycling?. The use of Gimmickcranks.
 
Chapeau! said:
Why wouldn't those fibers be used in competition?. Twin #2 has used them in training, and neural adaptation has been accomplished?.

Because Fernandez-Pena etal (2009) showed that the alterations to pedalling from a Gimmickcrank were lost soon after going back on normal cranks.

Twin #2 trains on regular cranks & supplements with PowerCranks.
But he only races with normal cranks. If he did the same training as twin 1 and then did supplemental Gimmickcrank training he would be training more and we wouldn't be comparing apples with apples.

What does this tell you about Twin #2?. Who trains the highest volume of trained muscle over Twin #1?.
If training volume is held constant then twin 1 performs more specific work.
Well, with regards to cross Country Skiing, then yes, more muscle is better. Why can't we stake the claim for cycling?. The use of Gimmickcranks.
I didn't say more muscle was better. Only that an athlete performing Cross Country Skiing will use more muscle than a cyclist and this is why they tend to have higher VO2max's than cyclists.
 
fergs said:
Because Fernandez-Pena etal (2009) showed that the alterations to pedalling from a Gimmickcrank were lost soon after going back on normal cranks.

fergs, listen to what I'm saying. Twin #2 trains on regular cranks & supplements with GimmickCranks.

Hes supplementing GimmickCranks year round.

Again, Why wouldn't those fibers be used in competition?. Twin #2 has used them in training, and neural adaptation has been accomplished?. Hes supplementing GimmickCranks year round?.

fergs said:
But he only races with normal cranks.

There both racing & training with normal cranks?.

fergs said:
If training volume is held constant then twin 1 performs more specific work.

But training volume isn't held constant. Twin #2 has trained the highest volume of trained muscle over Twin #1 (training the same distance)?.

fergs said:
Performing Cross Country Skiing will use more muscle than a cyclist and this is why they tend to have higher VO2max's than cyclists.

So, the Cross country Skiers have higher VO2max's via the useage of using more muscle... GimmickCranks are implemented in training for the useage of using more muscle.

Wheres the burden?.