Poor man's Powercranks? (PPC)

[acoggan]

Might I remind you Dr. Coggan that you just recently referred to two studies to make your point. One that was PRESENTED at the ACSM, a similar situation as the Dixon study but for which not even an abstract was given nor available to anyone, apparently, to anyone who was not at the meeting and another which you stated is IN PRESS. Very useful to make your point.

The difference being, of course, that I am perfectly happy to discuss the limitations of such studies based on what is known about them, as opposed to blowing off such criticism with comments such as "ask the authors".

 

[Fday]

The difference being, of course, that I am perfectly happy to discuss the limitations of such studies based on what is known about them, as opposed to blowing off such criticism with comments such as "ask the authors".

No you are not. If you are willing "to discuss the limitations of such studies", let's discuss the Coyle study that is so widely referred to as "proving" that "just pushing harder" is superior to "pedaling in circles".

We can start with these items for discussion.

First, do you believe that study showed such?

Second, if so, can you point me to the exact spot where Coyle draws that conclusion or where it is otherwise shown in the paper.

Third, If you don't believe that but believe it makes another point about one pedaling style being superior to another could you tell us what you think it says and where it says it.

Fourth, do you see any weaknesses in the paper and, if so, what are they?

Frank

 

[Fday]

Did you really just say that?

Yes. At least in medicine a lot of well published authors put out a lot of ****. Utter ****. They even reference themselves in subsequent papers. I wrote a letter to the editor "exposing" one "well-respected" author where about 50% of the references were to articles he authored and and others were to articles over 100 years old plus he completely ignored mainstream alternative points of view.

I suspect the same occurs in all academic fields.

Frank

 

[Fday]

you keep touting the research as being performed by some high-powered scientists (which it clearly was not).

I have never referred to Dr. Cheung as "high-powered", simply as well-respected. Do you have any information to the contrary regarding his academic reputation?

Frank

 

[acoggan]

No you are not. If you are willing "to discuss the limitations of such studies", let's discuss the Coyle study that is so widely referred to as "proving" that "just pushing harder" is superior to "pedaling in circles".

We can start with these items for discussion.

First, do you believe that study showed such?

No. However, it does provide evidence (of a cross-sectional nature) that there is no advantage to "pedaling in circles".

Second, if so, can you point me to the exact spot where Coyle draws that conclusion or where it is otherwise shown in the paper.

I don't know if he does. However, since Ed trained me to think for myself , I don't really care what he says about the data: I know what conclusions I draw from it.

Third, If you don't believe that but believe it makes another point about one pedaling style being superior to another could you tell us what you think it says and where it says it.

Again, I don't care what's written in the text, but what the data actually show, which is that 1) some cyclists already pedal in the manner you consider superior, but 2) this does not result in their being either more efficient or more powerful (over an hour).

Fourth, do you see any weaknesses in the paper and, if so, what are they?

In this context, the primary one is that it used a cross-sectional vs. an interventional design. Nonetheless, the data are consistent with both what you'd expect based on an understanding of muscle physiology and of the biomechanics of cycling, as well as with subsequent interventional studies (e.g., Jim Martin's).

 

[acoggan]

I have never referred to Dr. Cheung as "high-powered", simply as well-respected. Do you have any information to the contrary regarding his academic reputation?

As I said before, all I know is that he doesn't publish a lot or get cited a lot.

 

[acoggan]

Yes. At least in medicine a lot of well published authors put out a lot of ****. Utter ****. They even reference themselves in subsequent papers. I wrote a letter to the editor "exposing" one "well-respected" author where about 50% of the references were to articles he authored and and others were to articles over 100 years old plus he completely ignored mainstream alternative points of view.

I suspect the same occurs in all academic fields.

Frank

There is absolutely nothing wrong, per se, with referencing yourself or with referencing classic studies.

 

[Fday]

No. However, it does provide evidence (of a cross-sectional nature) that there is no advantage to "pedaling in circles".

Thanks for agreeing that it doesn't provide proof of anything. While it could support the argument that there is no advantage to pedaling in circles (it would support a study that was well designed for this that came to this conclusion, which, of course, doesn't exist) since it found little advantage in this group of cyclists/ There were so few controls in this regard and so many other rational explanations for the findings that absolutely no conclusions can rationally be drawn regarding this. Would you agree with this?

I don't know if he does. However, since Ed trained me to think for myself , I don't really care what he says about the data: I know what conclusions I draw from it.

And your conclusions are? And the data that supports those conclusions?

Again, I don't care what's written in the text, but what the data actually show, which is that 1) some cyclists already pedal in the manner you consider superior, but 2) this does not result in their being either more efficient or more powerful (over an hour).

I saw no data that suggests that "some cyclists already pedal in the manner (I) consider superior", that is complete unweighting for the entirety of the ride. Even if it were true, is there biopsey data to confirm that efficiency differences (or sameness) are not modified by muscle fibre type?

In this context, the primary one is that it used a cross-sectional vs. an interventional design. Nonetheless, the data are consistent with both what you'd expect based on an understanding of muscle physiology and of the biomechanics of cycling, as well as with subsequent interventional studies (e.g., Jim Martin's).

How is it consistent with what I would expect "based upon an understanding of muscle physiology and the biomechanics of cycling". You (and Coyle) are the ones who think that the only way to change cycling efficiency is to change muscle fibre type (at least that is what Coyle stated in his paper on Lance's efficiency improvements over time and you have defended that) but there is no control here regarding muscle fibre type of the subjects, so how can one interpret the results that pedaling patterns don't matter?

Coyle never came to the conclusion that this study shows what everyone seems to think it does. What did he miss in the data? I suggest nothing because this study cannot demonstrate what everyone thinks it does.

Frank

Frank

 

[Fday]

There is absolutely nothing wrong, per se, with referencing yourself or with referencing classic studies.

There is when the intention is to simply make a rant look like a scholarly paper. It is all in the context.

 

[Fday]

As I said before, all I know is that he doesn't publish a lot or get cited a lot.

No, you put words in my mouth that I referred to him as a "high powered" researcher. I simply referred to him as well-respected, which I believe he is. The fact he does not publish a lot says nothing about the quality of his work in general or the quality of any specific piece of work in particular.

 

[acoggan]

you put words in my mouth that I referred to him as a "high powered" researcher.

I see. So, what exactly did you mean to convey by repeatedly stating:

"This study was done by a very reputable group..."

"...this well respected group..."

"...these authors have an excellent reputation..."

"...I was told by a researcher in Australia that he had an excellent reputation for doing good work."

Etc.

 

[Fday]

I see. So, what exactly did you mean to convey by repeatedly stating:

"This study was done by a very reputable group..."

"...this well respected group..."

"...these authors have an excellent reputation..."

"...I was told by a researcher in Australia that he had an excellent reputation for doing good work."

Etc.

Exactly what I said is exactly what I meant. I have never heard anything detrimental regarding the acedemic integrity of any member of this group plus when I told people this study was in the works to people who knew of them I was told they had an excellent reputation. If you have information to the contrary please let me know and I might change my view. If not, back off.

Now, lets get back to discussing the Coyle study instead of dissing those who happened to have studied PowerCranks.

Frank

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Exactly what I said is exactly what I meant. I have never heard anything detrimental regarding the acedemic integrity of any member of this group plus when I told people this study was in the works to people who knew of them I was told they had an excellent reputation. If you have information to the contrary please let me know and I might change my view. If not, back off.

Now, lets get back to discussing the Coyle study instead of dissing those who happened to have studied PowerCranks.

Frank

But you're the one that kept 'bigging' him (and his group) up. Andy, has just said that he hasn't previously published in this field of exercise physiology. He usually publishes in environmental physiology.

Let me rephrase this. Andy is a leading expert in exercise physiology, and has written papers on e.g., the demands of cycle racing (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=3403447&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum). However, you wouldn't necessarily expect him to be an expert and write a paper on the determinants of performance in say horse racing or gymnastics, would you? Now, he may have a reasonable or good idea of how those sports and the mechanisms involved work, but wouldn't necessarily be an expert (apologies andy, if you know lots about these sports). Similarly, while Cheung may know and be well respected about thermoregulation, it doesn't necessarily mean he knows much about endurance cycling performance (and having read some of the articles that does write about them, i've made a fair point).

Now, Frank, i know you know and understand the above, i'm sure you just play 'daft' to swing the lead.

Ric

 

[Fday]

But you're the one that kept 'bigging' him (and his group) up. Andy, has just said that he hasn't previously published in this field of exercise physiology. He usually publishes in environmental physiology.

Let me rephrase this. Andy is a leading expert in exercise physiology, and has written papers on e.g., the demands of cycle racing (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=3403447&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum). However, you wouldn't necessarily expect him to be an expert and write a paper on the determinants of performance in say horse racing or gymnastics, would you? Now, he may have a reasonable or good idea of how those sports and the mechanisms involved work, but wouldn't necessarily be an expert (apologies andy, if you know lots about these sports). Similarly, while Cheung may know and be well respected about thermoregulation, it doesn't necessarily mean he knows much about endurance cycling performance (and having read some of the articles that does write about them, i've made a fair point).

Now, Frank, i know you know and understand the above, i'm sure you just play 'daft' to swing the lead.

Ric

Phooey. The Dixon paper (which is not yet a paper) should be judged on its merits just as the Luttrell study should be, and the Coyle study and every other study out there (including Dr. Coggan's). Unless the authors are known for doing fraudulent work, lets discuss the papers. Stop obfusicating. Let's discuss these papers, both their strengths and their weaknesses. I am trying to start with the Coyle study. Pitch in if you have any opinions. Then, let's move on to the Luttrell study for comparison. Then everyone can judge for themselves which is the better paper regarding this topic.

Frank

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Phooey. The Dixon paper (which is not yet a paper) should be judged on its merits

You're the one who keeps bringing it up. I don't believe it has any merits. An abstract is an abridged version of the actual paper, which should include all the information (in a shortened form). There's no control group mentioned. The study falls to pieces. End of.

Ric

 

[Fday]

You're the one who keeps bringing it up. I don't believe it has any merits. An abstract is an abridged version of the actual paper, which should include all the information (in a shortened form). There's no control group mentioned. The study falls to pieces. End of.

Ric

What did your statistician say about the absolute need for a control group to keep a study from "falling to pieces"? Anyhow, this is more obfuscation. It is time we start talking about the relative merits of these various articles/studies. Forget Dixon, let us just talk about Coyle (no control group) vs Luttrell (control group) and what they say (or don't say) about pedaling mechanics. What are you and Dr. Coggan afraid of? If Dr. Coggan is the expert you claim he should be able to easily convince me and those lurking here as to what these papers mean and how they should be "properly" interpreted. After all, Doctor means teacher.

 

[n crowley]

What did your statistician say about the absolute need for a control group to keep a study from "falling to pieces"? Anyhow, this is more obfuscation. It is time we start talking about the relative merits of these various articles/studies. Forget Dixon, let us just talk about Coyle (no control group) vs Luttrell (control group) and what they say (or don't say) about pedaling mechanics. What are you and Dr. Coggan afraid of? If Dr. Coggan is the expert you claim he should be able to easily convince me and those lurking here as to what these papers mean and how they should be "properly" interpreted. After all, Doctor means teacher.

In the Luttrell and Dixon studies was any attention given to the pedaling style of all these riders before the tests began ?

 

[Fday]

In the Luttrell and Dixon studies was any attention given to the pedaling style of all these riders before the tests began ?

No, they simply looked at the "end result" changes that occurred from incorporating PC's into their training program compared to another group who did similar training without PC's.

 

[Fday]

In the Luttrell and Dixon studies was any attention given to the pedaling style of all these riders before the tests began ?

Oops, didn't notice you asked about Dixon also. I don't believe he paid any attention to pedaling style in the subjects. I also don't know if there was a control group of if they measured statistical significance in another way. I don't know this because I have not seen the protocol.

Frank

 

[n crowley]

Oops, didn't notice you asked about Dixon also. I don't believe he paid any attention to pedaling style in the subjects. I also don't know if there was a control group of if they measured statistical significance in another way. I don't know this because I have not seen the protocol.

Frank

In both studies there are too many unanswered questions. How can training of hip flexors increase your main downward pedal stroke muscle power to turn those higher gears. What was your pedaling style before you started using PC's.