Poor man's Powercranks? (PPC)
- Thread starter rmur17
- Start date
I stopped racing in 96 and got back on the bike in 2005, although not that seriously. The odd 30 mile here, 50 mile there....and then after a month or two 130miles in the mountains near Lake Tahoe. LOLSteve_B said:
Just before I stopped racing I was tested at a college in England - my "1 hour" power output was 340watts at 190bpm, blood lactate of 5.5mmol.
... when I got back on the bike, well, lets just say that adding "the odd pound or a few dozen" due to the new American diet and no exercise in 10 years had it's effects.
Since 2005 I'd say I'd been riding for about 24 of the 36 months, time off due to work, illness etc... I was still using the Polar Sports Tester (VantageXL in the US) to record heart rate data and a shortened program of what I was using when I was racing. Mostly during the winter/rainy months that was 1hr 30 to 2 hrs at 165 to 170bpm on the trainer with Master of Puppets in the headphones and during the summer I'd be out in the hills around Lake Berryessa to the east of Napa. The last 10 months I've been using a CS600 as my 1991 "vintage" Polar kicked the bucket following a battery change. I got the PowerCranks towards the end of last November (2007)
I don't really know why people are always so inclined to defend power cranks or attack them.
People don't apply the same type of scrutiny to the supplement pills they take, the tires people add to their bikes, the clothing they wear, or other things that can significantly effect how fast you go on a bicycle.
I thought it was the price of these cranks that caused so much debate. To spend $600 or not to deserves a large amount of discussion. But people make this kind of financial decision when buying a bike or a set of wheels. But rarely do debates on which bike to buy last 10+ pages in this forum.
I'm still not sure why people love to attack them or defend them so much.
That being said I am a powercranks user. I've used powercranks since september 2008. I used them 6 days a week exclusively in training. I do all my training on them except for one long ride a week. I don't think they give you as much benefit as they the website claims they do. I also don't thikn that the hip flexor gets that much stronger, or that your VO2max goes up or anything crazy like that. There is definitely no significant 'pulling up' that occurs, at least nothing beyond picking up your leg.
That being said, I think the major advantage is coordination between the two legs. You don't really realize how uncoordinated your legs are. Thats where the major advantage for me is. I'm not sure how many watts leg coordination is worth tho. After using them for so long, I don't think that that advantage is worth $600. But I will continue to train on them.
About 'studies' on powercanks. Cyclists LOVE LOVE LOVE to show how some study is flawed, how another study is bias, or how a study is logically unsound. For example, lets say i cite a study that does tests on 15 different cyclists who showed 5 min max power improvement using PCs, or another study showed no significant improvement.
Someone on this site would say "oh there are only 15 of them" or "look those benefits could have been just from training in general" or "you don't know what the base fitness was of those athletes" or "you don;t know what their diets were." Us cyclists are really good at identifying potential flaws in studies. BUTTTT, Just so everyone knows, conducting a completely controlled scientific test that involves human beings is practically impossible.
So as far as powerCranks goes. best try them for yourself. Powercranks Inc lets you test them for 90 days and return them if you want. I would suggest taking advantage of that deal.
Try it yourself before you make a judgement on them. That could go for a lot of things in life.
People don't apply the same type of scrutiny to the supplement pills they take, the tires people add to their bikes, the clothing they wear, or other things that can significantly effect how fast you go on a bicycle.
I thought it was the price of these cranks that caused so much debate. To spend $600 or not to deserves a large amount of discussion. But people make this kind of financial decision when buying a bike or a set of wheels. But rarely do debates on which bike to buy last 10+ pages in this forum.
I'm still not sure why people love to attack them or defend them so much.
That being said I am a powercranks user. I've used powercranks since september 2008. I used them 6 days a week exclusively in training. I do all my training on them except for one long ride a week. I don't think they give you as much benefit as they the website claims they do. I also don't thikn that the hip flexor gets that much stronger, or that your VO2max goes up or anything crazy like that. There is definitely no significant 'pulling up' that occurs, at least nothing beyond picking up your leg.
That being said, I think the major advantage is coordination between the two legs. You don't really realize how uncoordinated your legs are. Thats where the major advantage for me is. I'm not sure how many watts leg coordination is worth tho. After using them for so long, I don't think that that advantage is worth $600. But I will continue to train on them.
About 'studies' on powercanks. Cyclists LOVE LOVE LOVE to show how some study is flawed, how another study is bias, or how a study is logically unsound. For example, lets say i cite a study that does tests on 15 different cyclists who showed 5 min max power improvement using PCs, or another study showed no significant improvement.
Someone on this site would say "oh there are only 15 of them" or "look those benefits could have been just from training in general" or "you don't know what the base fitness was of those athletes" or "you don;t know what their diets were." Us cyclists are really good at identifying potential flaws in studies. BUTTTT, Just so everyone knows, conducting a completely controlled scientific test that involves human beings is practically impossible.
So as far as powerCranks goes. best try them for yourself. Powercranks Inc lets you test them for 90 days and return them if you want. I would suggest taking advantage of that deal.
Try it yourself before you make a judgement on them. That could go for a lot of things in life.
I do.frenchcycling said:
I don't need to try smoking in order to know it's not much help to my health. Or perhaps I should buy a pack and try that too. Let's face it, the dangers are over-blown - like the claims of powercranks, right?frenchcycling said:
frenchcycling said:
Why the need for all that pain and a year of "one legged " type training when you can get the same benefit by using your brain and perfecting the circular style of pedalling in a week or less. Because PC or circular pedalling uses minimal upward torque on the rising crank, it forces a rider to use the downward pedal for part of the necessary resistance, this in turn upsets the brain's concentration on downward power where it should use bodyweight only for resistance and causes the downward leg to attempt to use the upward torque action as part of its resistance and results in a weaker downstroke. The overall result is a loss of pedal power because that upward torque cannot compensate for power lost in the downstroke. If it's an increase in power output you are looking for, then you need the masher's style because without interfering with his powerful down stroke, by perfecting the unweighting technique he can not only eliminate all negative crank torque but also increase that already powerful downward crank torque.
Alex Simmons said:I don't need to try smoking in order to know it's not much help to my health. Or perhaps I should buy a pack and try that too. Let's face it, the dangers are over-blown - like the claims of powercranks, right?
This is an extremely stupid comparison and insulting to anyone who has personally suffered from lung cancer or knows someone who has. I don't really know how smoking and a cycling gadget can be used in the same sentence.
All I am saying its best to try before judging them. maybe if you try them you will love them, maybe if you try them you will hate them even more than before. Either way your opinion will be more accurate.
If you try them, your opinion (whatever it may be) will be more justified.
I'm sure that after reading this post you will get a pair of powerCranks and test them.
Maybe not here but between, Wattage, Fixed Gear Fever, Weight Weenies, Cutting Edge (if you want to know what drugs to take) Bike Tech Review, Fair Wheel Bikes, trust me it all gets discussed.frenchcycling said:
Again I disagree, I paid for research on the best type of wheels to choose and frequently suggest my riders invest in measures like power meters or wind tunnel data.
It's the battle between marketing and sport science. Especially in this case where sport science is being used badly to market a product.
We are all entitled to our opinions but seeing there is such a huge amount of choice for a cyclist and coach to make about where to invest time and funds it does make life easier to review actual research rather than take ONE person's word for something.
The research done has been assessed by some pretty experienced sport scientists. Mr Day's marketing claims also fly in the face of many physiological, engineering and biomechanical principles.
Why waste my time, no research has shown them to make an improvement and no sound theory has been provided why we should ignore this research.
fergie said:
This is a really good point. I didn't think about it in that way.
But i also think that its important to know that some things work for some people and not others. Like for me i don;t really think powerCranks improved my performance, but that does not mean that some of the benefits that other people experienced with them is somehow a lie or imagined.
To make a loosely related comparison...
I also like to think of the 'Higher Cadence is better' in relation to Lance Armstrong. There isn't really any definitive evidence that a higher cadence is better than a lower cadence.
But because Armstrong used a higher cadence and he won a lot, people believe a higher cadence is always better. Now amateurs the world around try an imitate Armstrong's pedaling cadence.
BUT my point is There is still conflicting scientific evidence as to whether higher is better (just like there is conflicting evidence that powerCranks have an effect). But because a tour winner used it, higher must be legitimate in some way. And many many coaches have adopted this cadence philosphy in spite of conflicting scientific research.
I think if Contador or Evans or any big name talked about powerCranks people would give them more than a passing thought. And would give powerCranks the benefit of the doubt just like people have given Higher Cadence the benefit of the doubt in spite of potentially conflicting studies.
Show me one Tour defining attack in the moutains where Armstrong used a high cadence. I can show you plenty where he used big gears and lots of riding out of the saddle...frenchcycling said:
The only high cadence mountain ass-whooping that was laid down was in the Alpe D'huez time trial.
Personally, I found that Powercranks are the best thing since sliced bread, a good English beer and sex... My powertap agrees with me, well, about the increased power part that is.
... and therein lies the problem with all the 'tests', comparisons and the like.fergie said:Now all we need is for your twin brother who has spent the equivalent time training in a similar fashion on normal cranks to compare against your progress.
British beer! Trying to disgust me is not going to help in this argument
Well, I remember what I was like when I was 26 and spent an entire year going from 300 to 340 watts on 'regular cranks' with more time devoted to the bike. The year prior to that netted a 10 watt gain. Those tests were done on a Kingcycle test rig. How that compares to the PowerTap I'm not sure but I'm putting out more than that now with less training, more work/other commitments and less sleep/rest. I popped out 321watts average for 2 hours in training the other week to verify Monod test results. It was about as hard as I could maintain in training but I'd expect a few more watts if done during a 50 mile time trial in an official race. Then again I might set of slightly too hard and blow my wad in the first 80 minutes... LOL
I dig 'em, they seem to work for me and I'm very satisfied with the results I'm getting. Now if I wasn't quite so lazy...
Sam Smiths Ale is heaven in a glass you Castlemaine XXXX lover.
Yes, your right, your can't make a legitimate comparison. Hence the hope of a twin following a similar programme, similarly motivated on similar equipment bar the cranks to support your claims. Hence careful reading of the research holds better answers.
frenchcycling said:
Sure I would give them a try if the PC's were sent to my house to try absolutely free for one year and then I could make my own judgement, but I doubt that is going to happen.frenchcycling said:
Seems kind of expensive to outlay that kind of funds to find out if it works or doesn't work. I did, however, outlay the money for a power meter after multitudes on the forums talked about progression using a power meter. Still I had doubts about it for a while, but the biggest hurdle was the cost to find out. I have invested financially and physically in the power meter, but I cannot justify another expense for a personal experiment.
Experimenting with a higher cadence for the benefit of doubt may cost you on effort and time lost if it doesn't work out, but it doesn't cost you financially to work on a higher cadence unless you are paid to cycle.
My point is that this is not an inexpensive "benefit of doubt" experiment.
Frank knows my philosophy on PCs. I've been part of a "test" for the last year, though he will say (and I will admit) that I violated the spirit by not using them 100% of the time. Nonetheless, I used them enough, IMO, to come to conclusions.swampy1970 said:... and therein lies the problem with all the 'tests', comparisons and the like.
Well, I remember what I was like when I was 26 and spent an entire year going from 300 to 340 watts on 'regular cranks' with more time devoted to the bike. The year prior to that netted a 10 watt gain. Those tests were done on a Kingcycle test rig. How that compares to the PowerTap I'm not sure but I'm putting out more than that now with less training, more work/other commitments and less sleep/rest. I popped out 321watts average for 2 hours in training the other week to verify Monod test results. It was about as hard as I could maintain in training but I'd expect a few more watts if done during a 50 mile time trial in an official race. Then again I might set of slightly too hard and blow my wad in the first 80 minutes... LOL
I dig 'em, they seem to work for me and I'm very satisfied with the results I'm getting. Now if I wasn't quite so lazy...
Sam Smiths Ale is heaven in a glass you Castlemaine XXXX lover.
If you aren't at your physiological limit do I think they can get you there? Yes.
Can you get there without them? Yes.
Can you get there with them faster than without them? Perhaps so.
Can you get higher than your physiological limit with them? I don't believe so.
Frank seems to believe #4 above, whereas I focus on #3. I've been riding with power for 7+ years and have a good enough background in training methods to know what works and doesn't work for me. What I noticed with the PCs, in the first month or so, was a VO2-like response and a constant need to ride in my tempo zone to stay coordinated. In essence, the PCs were forcing me to do that good old "sweet spot tempo" riding which is known to help with your threshold. SST is some of the best bang for the buck training out there - minimal time, maximal effect. So am I surprised at your claims? Not really.
But you do have to be careful with your claims. A former cat 1 racer who admittedly is recording power levels at your previous values prior to an extended break. You're just at your 100% mark, not 105% mark or 110% mark or the mythical 140% "Joaoquin mark". I'm confident that you would have gotten to that mark with both PCs and regular cranks. The PCs got you there a little quicker probably due to the additional effort involved, not because of some magic unweighting or hip flexor strength increase. Frank's own data that he's put up in the other thread shows that even "PC adapted" riders revert back to a pedaling style of no unweighting as soon as they switch back. The answer, IMO, is all in how PCs force you into those zone 3 workouts until you've adapted.
My own experience with them has demonstrated my power hasn't increased. It's just up against my previous lifetime peaks like yours.
swampy1970 said:
Everyone knows armstrong uses a higher cadence. It doesn't have to be in the mountains. Its in the flats in the time trials, everywhere. That does not mean that in the mountains he is spinning 100+rpm. What it means is that he usually used a HIGHER cadence than the riders next to him. If he was pedaling 85, the riders next to him were probably pedaling at 80. HIGHER.
That was his thing. The whole comparison with Ullrich being a big diesel engine with low revs VS armstrong using a low gear high rev approach. See the whole "armstrong high cadence on your low intensity ride" thread.
But remember we are talking about powerCranks. My point is that there is a lot of contrasting scientific evidence as to whether a higher cadence is actually better. BUT because a 7xtour winner used a higher cadence, people immediately thought it was better in spite of little scientific evidence. I AM TALKING ABOUT THE way people USE scientific research (not whether or not high cadence is good or not, this is an important question but not related to this thread).
Many Coaches tell their athletes to favor a higher cadence. But if everyone is so "Science Based" why do athletes try to pedal like Armstrong? There is little scientific evidence to show that Higher is better. But because 1 successful cyclist used higher cadence, that counts as evidence enough. So my point is that people care about 'scientific evidence' selectively. If armstrong or any succesful rider talked about powercranks, people would give them the benefit of the doubt in the same way that people give HIGH cadence the benefit of the doubt in spite of evidence.
He did pedal quicker when sitting in the group during long mountain stages but when it was 'money time' a darned big gear out of the saddle was often the order of the day. Youtube is your friend on this one - go lookup some of his many attacks such as Alpe Dhuez, Sestrierre, chasing Pantani down on the ventoux... I haven't seen anyone ride that much out of the saddle since the days of little Luis Herrera. Note that in the few mountain stages where Lance was in trouble - such as the Joux Plane, you rarely saw his butt rise from the seat.frenchcycling said:
On the flats and during time trials his legs went up and down like bees wings.
I've spent several years trying to get back to where I was and the first few were very lack lustre. While there was some improvement on the hills, mainly from losing weight, there wasn't much to be had in the way of increases on the flat. If anything training that I was doing 2 years ago should have yielded a bigger increase in performance because is was (a) more intense and focused and (b) I had more time to rest, work was less stressful etc. About 1/2 of last year was wiped out with lung function issues - of which pulmonary tests show that I'm down 40% lung capacity.tigermilk said:
Now... the planets may well have aligned, my diet may have changed ever so slightly to release a veritable torrent of engery and performance or just walking up and down the four floors of stairs at work instead of taking the elevator has propelled me to greater things... but I doubt it.
I'm not saying that the PC's were the only thing that helped - but I do believe that they were the major component in that improvement.
"Frank seems to believe #4 above" HUH?????tigermilk said:
I recently stated in another thread that it is impossible for anyone to exceed their physiological limit. However, I also think it is pretty much impossible to know if someone is at their physiological limit, I'll bet Ralph Boston thought he was pretty much at his physiological limit when he was long jumping 24 feet until he suddenly, one day, jumped 27 feet. I just don't know how to know if someone is there without trying to go beyond where they are.
While you haven't seen any overall benefit from using the PC's that doesn't mean that the observations of others who have seen improvements (some of them large), after reaching a seeming plateau, are misinterpreting their experience.
It is impossible to draw general conclusions from an n=1 experience. People try (as yourself) but the conclusions must be suspect. But, if one can collect a whole lot of n=1 experiences then one might be able to draw some valid conclusions as to what one might expect from the range of improvement (if any) to the average and median improvement (if any).
