P
Phil Holman
Guest
"Robert Chung" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Phil Holman wrote:
>
>> There was a study a while back that showed significant
>> increases in gross efficiency although the study was criticized on a
>> technicality (its hypothesis statement or some such).
>
> Uh, no, that's exactly opposite. It wasn't being criticized on a
> technicality, it was being criticized on substantive grounds. It was
> being defended on a technicality.
>
I found Jim Martin's original critique.
"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
Phil H
news:[email protected]...
> Phil Holman wrote:
>
>> There was a study a while back that showed significant
>> increases in gross efficiency although the study was criticized on a
>> technicality (its hypothesis statement or some such).
>
> Uh, no, that's exactly opposite. It wasn't being criticized on a
> technicality, it was being criticized on substantive grounds. It was
> being defended on a technicality.
>
I found Jim Martin's original critique.
"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
Phil H
