Poor man's Powercranks? (PPC)

[Laflore]

My man, I did read the entire post, You simply said that you would be more impresse if it were a cyclist.

You might want to check to see how pro cyclists tend to do during the cycling portion of IM events when they compete.

But you are not impressed so be it.

Frankly, I don't care about triathletes or how pro cyclists do in triathlon events (and usually retired).

You've stated, ad nauseum, about how this or that pro cyclist uses powercranks to enhance their training. I simply wanted to see a photo of one using your cranks, and I find it odd that you can't seem to dig one up after all these years. Is this an unreasonable request?

Basically, it seems we just have to take your word for it.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

In this thread, http://www.cyclingforums.com/t237131.html is a picture of the bike ridden by Stephano Garzelli on a rest day at the TDF a few years ago. The black tape over the name does not mean they are not PowerCrank

http://www.cyclingforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=4134

Another picture is on our home page. Thia one of Magnust Bacstedt on his PuwerCranks bike.

classic. names and your own product spelt wrongly!!!

anyway, here's a pic of Magnus with his power cranks on.... just a different sort of power cranks, eh frank!?

http://pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=4805&status=True

Ric

 

[Fday]

classic. names and your own product spelt wrongly!!!

anyway, here's a pic of Magnus with his power cranks on.... just a different sort of power cranks, eh frank!?

http://pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=4805&status=True

Ric

http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/default.asp?pg=fullstory&id=4163

http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/default.asp?pg=fullstory&id=4097

but, alas, still no picture

 

[doctorSpoc]

Frank... you really need to lose that 40% claim... it's killing you. it's not just suspect it's impossible that the 40% improvement is related directly to the power cranks... it has to be total improvement.. what you need a is a study that shows the improvement only as it relates to the power cranks directly... if my FTP improved by 40% i would not just break the hour record i would destroy it and no one would be able to touch it for many, many years... but that's not going to happen any time soon... you really need to step away from that 40%... ~5% would be amazing and is within the realm of possbility.

that being said the i think the "push harder" crowd is also out to lunch on this one...
- to say that a proper pedalling action is "natural" is... lets just say it's wrong
- if i change my pedalling action such that the a greater proportion of the force vector is directed tangental to the crank, my pedalling action will be more effective (i.e. more force goes into turning the crank as opposed to compressing or elongating the crank arm)
- if i increase the "Effective Pedalling Range" (see analytic cycling) this will reduce the "Effective Pedalling Force" this seems quite likely to increase the effectiveness of my pedalling by reducing the instantaneous forces exerted by the muscle while maintaining the same ave torque (integrated torque)... or the reverse... increasing ave torque while maintaining the same effective pedalling force
- if i in a sense let my legs get out of the way of one another by better coordinating them this would seem to me to be a way to increase the effectiveness of my pedalling
- if i adjust my pedalling action to maintian the momentum of my legs especially on the down stroke and past 6 o'clock (this goes against the idea of "pedalling in circles") this would seem to be a way of increasing the effectiveness of my pedalling as well.. again getting out of the way of my legs
- if i more effectively use my hamstring during pedaling (most don't) this should as well improve the effectiveness of my pedalling
- if i vary my pedalling action such that slightly different muscle groups taxed in slightly different perportions or alternate adjustments leg to leg to stave of cramping it would seem that this would also increase the effectiveness of pedalling

but Frank... 40%!! you've got to be kidding... i don't know if your product actually works but EPO is what.. 10-15%? 40% is rediculous and is actually impossible... if you come out with a study that says that power cranks increase sustainable power by ~5% you are laughing... you could say that here is a product that is 1/2 to 1/3 as effective as EPO and it's legal... just get a proper test done! one that issolates the improvement that is directly attributable to the power cranks...

 

[Fday]

Frank... you really need to lose that 40% claim... it's killing you. it's not just suspect it's impossible that the 40% improvement is related directly to the power cranks... it has to be total improvement.. what you need a is a study that shows the improvement only as it relates to the power cranks directly... if my FTP improved by 40% i would not just break the hour record i would destroy it and no one would be able to touch it for many, many years... but that's not going to happen any time soon... you really need to step away from that 40%... ~5% would be amazing and is within the realm of possbility.

that being said the i think the "push harder" crowd is also out to lunch on this one...
- to say that a proper pedalling action is "natural" is... lets just say it's wrong
- if i change my pedalling action such that the a greater proportion of the force vector is directed tangental to the crank, my pedalling action will be more effective (i.e. more force goes into turning the crank as opposed to compressing or elongating the crank arm)
- if i increase the "Effective Pedalling Range" (see analytic cycling) this will reduce the "Effective Pedalling Force" this seems quite likely to increase the effectiveness of my pedalling by reducing the instantaneous forces exerted by the muscle while maintaining the same ave torque (integrated torque)... or the reverse... increasing ave torque while maintaining the same effective pedalling force
- if i in a sense let my legs get out of the way of one another by better coordinating them this would seem to me to be a way to increase the effectiveness of my pedalling
- if i adjust my pedalling action to maintian the momentum of my legs especially on the down stroke and past 6 o'clock (this goes against the idea of "pedalling in circles") this would seem to be a way of increasing the effectiveness of my pedalling as well.. again getting out of the way of my legs
- if i more effectively use my hamstring during pedaling (most don't) this should as well improve the effectiveness of my pedalling
- if i vary my pedalling action such that slightly different muscle groups taxed in slightly different perportions or alternate adjustments leg to leg to stave of cramping it would seem that this would also increase the effectiveness of pedalling

but Frank... 40%!! you've got to be kidding... i don't know if your product actually works but EPO is what.. 10-15%? 40% is rediculous and is actually impossible... if you come out with a study that says that power cranks increase sustainable power by ~5% you are laughing... you could say that here is a product that is 1/2 to 1/3 as effective as EPO and it's legal... just get a proper test done! one that issolates the improvement that is directly attributable to the power cranks...

Well Dr. Spoc, for you I will only claim a 5% improvement in power. However, I suspect you still won't be buying a pair because you aren't convinced there would be any improvement.

And, I might ask why should I only claim a 5% improvement when earlier in this thread (post 128) a customer comes and posts test data showing a 25% improvement in FTP in one year. His post was just ignored by all rather than questioning him as to why he attributed it "all" to the PowerCranks, even though he explained it pretty well, isn't like he is new to the sport. I look forward to his posting his further testing results as he said he would.

I claim what the data suggests our average new user will see. The data could possibly be better, as many have stated, but it is what it is and the reports of new users support the claim is about right. If you are an elite I suggest you will see less than 40% because you probably have better form than the average cyclist so you have less room for improvement. But, 5% - that is a no brainer for essentially everyone, including you, whoever you are.

 

[vadiver]

Well Dr. Spoc, for you I will only claim a 5% improvement in power. However, I suspect you still won't be buying a pair because you aren't convinced there would be any improvement.

And, I might ask why should I only claim a 5% improvement when earlier in this thread (post 128) a customer comes and posts test data showing a 25% improvement in FTP in one year. His post was just ignored by all rather than questioning him as to why he attributed it "all" to the PowerCranks, even though he explained it pretty well, isn't like he is new to the sport. I look forward to his posting his further testing results as he said he would.

I claim what the data suggests our average new user will see. The data could possibly be better, as many have stated, but it is what it is and the reports of new users support the claim is about right. If you are an elite I suggest you will see less than 40% because you probably have better form than the average cyclist so you have less room for improvement. But, 5% - that is a no brainer for essentially everyone, including you, whoever you are.

I was not planning on getting sucked into this thread as well but...

The post you mention may or may not be legit. If it is legit, good for him. That is one true cyclist that has shown 25% improvement using the product. This is entirely possible. One person can always be an outlier. This is why you need to contract an independet study to control and prove your claims.

As for the post. I found several things interesting about it:

He just stumbled upon that thread. Yet that was his only post and he just created the user name and that has been his only post.
There was not a single wasted line in it.
He claims his english was bad but it was pretty good in both reading and writing.
Everything that had been pointed out in the past couple of days was covered.
He knew Andrew but not you. That seemed extreemly unlikely to me.
Then at the very end he it ended like everyone of the positive posts, I do not know why but there has to be something.

But again it could be a legit post. There are always outliers in data.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

I claim what the data suggests our average new user will see. The data could possibly be better, as many have stated, but it is what it is and the reports of new users support the claim is about right. If you are an elite I suggest you will see less than 40% because you probably have better form than the average cyclist so you have less room for improvement. But, 5% - that is a no brainer for essentially everyone, including you, whoever you are.

You claimed that a 2nd/3rd category cyclist would see, on average, a ~40% increase in power. I've no idea what cat Dr Spoc is, but as i said previously such a cyclist with such a gain in power would be the world record holder, which is what Dr Spoc said.

Ric

 

[doctorSpoc]

Well Dr. Spoc, for you I will only claim a 5% improvement in power. However, I suspect you still won't be buying a pair because you aren't convinced there would be any improvement.

And, I might ask why should I only claim a 5% improvement when earlier in this thread (post 128) a customer comes and posts test data showing a 25% improvement in FTP in one year. His post was just ignored by all rather than questioning him as to why he attributed it "all" to the PowerCranks, even though he explained it pretty well, isn't like he is new to the sport. I look forward to his posting his further testing results as he said he would.

I claim what the data suggests our average new user will see. The data could possibly be better, as many have stated, but it is what it is and the reports of new users support the claim is about right. If you are an elite I suggest you will see less than 40% because you probably have better form than the average cyclist so you have less room for improvement. But, 5% - that is a no brainer for essentially everyone, including you, whoever you are.

Frank.. i'm not passing judgement this way or that way on your product... in fact i quite believe that your product probably does have a positive effect, but anything more that about a 5% gain directly attributable to power cranks, over and above just training well, i just can't swallow without definitive proof (and i really don't see it as forth coming)... i actually think i'm kinda on your side... that you can improve pedalling effectiveness... some would say you can't at all

but, a newbie or someone who undertakes a structured training schedule is going to have gains in leaps and bounds on the order of 25-40% just from regular dedicated training.. you need to separate what portion is attributable to power cranks and what portion is attributable to a newbie or other athelete just training at all or more or better.

i'm actually very interested in the results of a study on a change in pedalling effectiveness directly attributable to using power cranks and like i said, it seem very likely they will show improvement over and above just training normally but the degree of improvement you claim is beyond the realm... that being said i think that if you know what the factors are for effective pedalling you probably don't need power cranks you can just learn how to do it... but power cranks might very well be useful in that their use might automatically force users into a more effective pedalling style... don't know, because you don't have a study that ferrets out what portion of improvement is from training at all, more, better, more regularly, more structured and what portion (if any) is from power cranks... that's it just get a proper study done.

P.S. i'm just a middle of the road Masters racer.. and even measly me, with a 40% increase in sustainable power would DESTROY the world hour record and put out of reach of anyone else for many years... that's how out of line that figure is... it doesn't make any sense... much of that 40 or 25% is not maybe, but has to be from just training more or better

 

[Fday]

You claimed that a 2nd/3rd category cyclist would see, on average, a ~40% increase in power. I've no idea what cat Dr Spoc is, but as i said previously such a cyclist with such a gain in power would be the world record holder, which is what Dr Spoc said.

Ric

Ric,

A 40% increase in maximum power in a 20 minute Conoconi test does not necessarily translate into a 40% increase in 6 hour sustainable power at the same time. I realize this. It seems you should also but it appears you do not.

Joaco21 posts a 25% increase in FTP in one season yet, and even though it is clear he feels he rides much more like a world champion now, he holds no delusions this improvement, or even more, should it continue, will turn him into a world champion. He is just trying to get as good a possible and with PC's he has found improvement beyond what he thought was possible. He now has a VO2max higher than Lance in his prime. Does that mean he is as good as Lance? No. It does mean though, I suspect, he is a lot better than when his VO2 max was 70.

You think such improvements are impossible. Well, they certainly are if you are afraid to even try. Where is the risk? Point to a single instance of a customer claiming they got slower for trying them.

 

[vadiver]

Ric,

A 40% increase in maximum power in a 20 minute Conoconi test does not necessarily translate into a 40% increase in 6 hour sustainable power at the same time. I realize this. It seems you should also but it appears you do not.

Joaco21 posts a 25% increase in FTP in one season yet, and even though it is clear he feels he rides much more like a world champion now, he holds no delusions this improvement, or even more, should it continue, will turn him into a world champion. He is just trying to get as good a possible and with PC's he has found improvement beyond what he thought was possible. He now has a VO2max higher than Lance in his prime. Does that mean he is as good as Lance? No. It does mean though, I suspect, he is a lot better than when his VO2 max was 70.

You think such improvements are impossible. Well, they certainly are if you are afraid to even try. Where is the risk? Point to a single instance of a customer claiming they got slower for trying them.

You are hopeless Frank.

People have said time and time again the problem is with your WA 40% claim. Not that your product produces 0% improvement or decline in improvement.

People have said time and time again. Commision a study for 6 - 8 months that takes all factors out and isolates your product. Come back with those results.

You refuse to do that. What would happen to your sales if you paid the small amount for a study and it said there was a 40% increase in power? What would happen to your sales if it said there was a 5% increase?

 

[Fday]

but, a newbie or someone who undertakes a structured training schedule is going to have gains in leaps and bounds on the order of 25-40% just from regular dedicated training.. you need to separate what portion is attributable to power cranks and what portion is attributable to a newbie or other athelete just training at all or more or better.

I agree. The improvements we claim are in reasonably "stable" cyclists. We would expect bigger benefits in those who are new and also seeing huge training effect benefits also.

i'm actually very interested in the results of a study on a change in pedalling effectiveness directly attributable to using power cranks and like i said, it seem very likely they will show improvement over and above just training normally but the degree of improvement you claim is beyond the realm... that being said i think that if you know what the factors are for effective pedalling you probably don't need power cranks you can just learn how to do it... but power cranks might very well be useful in that their use might automatically force users into a more effective pedalling style... don't know, because you don't have a study that ferrets out what portion of improvement is from training at all, more, better, more regularly, more structured and what portion (if any) is from power cranks... that's it just get a proper study done.

How does one "know what the factors are for effective pedaling"? Anyone who hangs out here thinks it is all about "just pushing harder". Technique doesn't matter according to the gurus. Even if it does, what does "pedaling in circles" or "linear style" or any other descriptive term really mean and how does one learn these styles if they don't really know what they are and don't know what they are really doing now.

"just get a proper study done". what a simple statement. It has been difficult enought just to get some studies done lasting 6 weeks that show there is a benefit, let alone a study that would last 9 months to prove the 40% claim.

P.S. i'm just a middle of the road Masters racer.. and even measly me, with a 40% increase in sustainable power would DESTROY the world hour record and put out of reach of anyone else for many years... that's how out of line that figure is... it doesn't make any sense... much of that 40 or 25% is not maybe, but has to be from just training more or better

A 40% increase in max power isn't necessarily going to smash any record if the aerodynamics and endurance are not there also. Most of you middle of the road masters don't quite have world class aerodynamics nor world class endurance. In fact, the fact aerodynamics matters is another thing that can be actually drawn from the oft cited Coyle study. Not only did the faster time-trialists have more years of aerobic training base (duh!), they were also much faster than the power differences between the two groups would suggest meaning they had to have better aerodynamics. Experience and attention to details make a difference.

If you believe pedaling technique matters then you should ask yourself what is the best way to improve or learn proper technique. A few minutes a day or week doing ILT's or using a device that ensures every stroke of every ride is done properly? Or, something else. You tell me.

 

[doctorSpoc]

You are hopeless Frank.

People have said time and time again the problem is with your WA 40% claim. Not that your product produces 0% improvement or decline in improvement.

People have said time and time again. Commision a study for 6 - 8 months that takes all factors out and isolates your product. Come back with those results.

You refuse to do that. What would happen to your sales if you paid the small amount for a study and it said there was a 40% increase in power? What would happen to your sales if it said there was a 5% increase?

you know i think his sales would probably either remain the same or slightly improve because many people look at that 40% figure and say WTF!! Impossible and just dismiss it out of hand. but with a reasonable number and a study that meets the criteria of the sceptics... they know exactly what they are getting and 5% is a pretty impressive gain just by slapping on some crank arms... you should get an industrial designer to improve the styling a bit... but look at what people spend on wheels and aero bars and helmets for smaller gains?

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Ric,

A 40% increase in maximum power in a 20 minute Conoconi test does not necessarily translate into a 40% increase in 6 hour sustainable power at the same time. I realize this. It seems you should also but it appears you do not.

Joaco21 posts a 25% increase in FTP in one season yet, and even though it is clear he feels he rides much more like a world champion now, he holds no delusions this improvement, or even more, should it continue, will turn him into a world champion. He is just trying to get as good a possible and with PC's he has found improvement beyond what he thought was possible. He now has a VO2max higher than Lance in his prime. Does that mean he is as good as Lance? No. It does mean though, I suspect, he is a lot better than when his VO2 max was 70.

You think such improvements are impossible. Well, they certainly are if you are afraid to even try. Where is the risk? Point to a single instance of a customer claiming they got slower for trying them.

You make this up as you go along. We've been discussing this for years (the ~40% increase in sustainable power) and now you say it's nothing to do with sustainable power. Nonetheless, a 40% increase in power in a Conconi test and you'd still get a huge increase in sustainable power as your man suggested.

On the other hand it's easier to increase power at a lower intensity, rather than a higher intensity, which obviously runs counter to your point.

ric

 

[Fday]

You make this up as you go along. We've been discussing this for years (the ~40% increase in sustainable power) and now you say it's nothing to do with sustainable power. Nonetheless, a 40% increase in power in a Conconi test and you'd still get a huge increase in sustainable power as your man suggested.

On the other hand it's easier to increase power at a lower intensity, rather than a higher intensity, which obviously runs counter to your point.

ric

Ric, I don't make anything up. My 40% power increase claim has always been based upon Conconi max power test results. Similar to the kinds of tests run by cycling researchers. And, while it may be easier to increase power at lower intensities it is not easier to increase power for 1, 2, 4, or 6 hours at any intensity as this requires developing endurance at this new power, which requires hours and hours of base at these new powers. This will probably come but it will come very slowly, faster for 1 hour, slower for 6.

 

[doctorSpoc]

I agree. The improvements we claim are in reasonably "stable" cyclists. We would expect bigger benefits in those who are new and also seeing huge training effect benefits also.

How does one "know what the factors are for effective pedaling"? Anyone who hangs out here thinks it is all about "just pushing harder". Technique doesn't matter according to the gurus. Even if it does, what does "pedaling in circles" or "linear style" or any other descriptive term really mean and how does one learn these styles if they don't really know what they are and don't know what they are really doing now.

I mentioned some of factors in my post, but i agree that a product that would automatically force a more effective style would be very useful

"just get a proper study done". what a simple statement. It has been difficult enought just to get some studies done lasting 6 weeks that show there is a benefit, let alone a study that would last 9 months to prove the 40% claim.

I hear you.. it must be incredibly hard... personally i'm not going to devote 6 weeks much less 6 months of my life to participate in your study.. where do you get your subjects? that why i take most of the studies that are quoted on this board with a grain of salt.. many of the adapations take longer than are reasonable for a study.. and just don't hold constant what needs to be held constant in order to get decent results... garbage in garbage out

A 40% increase in max power isn't necessarily going to smash any record if the aerodynamics and endurance are not there also. Most of you middle of the road masters don't quite have world class aerodynamics nor world class endurance. In fact, the fact aerodynamics matters is another thing that can be actually drawn from the oft cited Coyle study. Not only did the faster time-trialists have more years of aerobic training base (duh!), they were also much faster than the power differences between the two groups would suggest meaning they had to have better aerodynamics. Experience and attention to details make a difference.

i understand this.. forgetting about the actual resulting time....i'm not going to achieve the power given proper aerodynamics etc in necesary to do so... i'm only talkinga about the power

If you believe pedaling technique matters then you should ask yourself what is the best way to improve or learn proper technique. A few minutes a day or week doing ILT's or using a device that ensures every stroke of every ride is done properly? Or, something else. You tell me.

this is like the 3rd time i'm saying it... that if your product works even at 5% it's a valuable product, people spend more for less improvement

 

[Fday]

this is like the 3rd time i'm saying it... that if your product works even at 5% it's a valuable product, people spend more for less improvement

Then, let me ask you this as you seem to have a reasonable middle of the road viewpoint here. In view of Joaco21's posted improvement, why on earth is it so hard to get anyone here to admit that it might be even possible that these might be worth the price or effort?

Everyone seems locked into the "impossible" 40% number, yet it is in the same order of magnitude reported by Joaco21 and many others but I am seen as a charlatan for simply telling potential customers what current customers report, because it hasn't been proven true. "Proving" (to a scientific certainty) our "claims" true is an essentially impossible task at this point in time.

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Ric, I don't make anything up. My 40% power increase claim has always been based upon Conconi max power test results. Similar to the kinds of tests run by cycling researchers. And, while it may be easier to increase power at lower intensities it is not easier to increase power for 1, 2, 4, or 6 hours at any intensity as this requires developing endurance at this new power, which requires hours and hours of base at these new powers. This will probably come but it will come very slowly, faster for 1 hour, slower for 6.

last i heard, if i blood dope or take rH-Epo my fitness increases straight away and i don't have to spend hours and hours doing base at these new powers (whatever that means). but don't you have to spend hours of doing base at the new powers as you train with the cranks?

Not that any researcher worth their salt would do a Conconi test.

Lastly, i'm not suggesting anyone take rH-Epo, blood dope or do anything else illegal.

ric

 

[Fday]

last i heard, if i blood dope or take rH-Epo my fitness increases straight away and i don't have to spend hours and hours doing base at these new powers (whatever that means). but don't you have to spend hours of doing base at the new powers as you train with the cranks?

Not that any researcher worth their salt would do a Conconi test.

Lastly, i'm not suggesting anyone take rH-Epo, blood dope or do anything else illegal.

ric

Actually, if you blood dope, at least with epo, your "fitness" doesn't change, only your apparent fitness changes because you have improved your ability to deliver oxygen to your cells without improving your cells, capillaries, or cardiovascular system at all. Bring the HCT back to "normal" and fitness will be unchanged. The same does not necessarily apply to doping with growth hormone, etc. where the changes hang around.

If hematocrit remains stable (the non-doping state), then increasing oxygen delivery and utilization takes a lot of hard work and, with equal "genetics", difference in "fitness" comes only from differences in "hard work".

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Actually, if you blood dope, at least with epo, your "fitness" doesn't change, only your apparent fitness changes because you have improved your ability to deliver oxygen to your cells without improving your cells, capillaries, or cardiovascular system at all. Bring the HCT back to "normal" and fitness will be unchanged. The same does not necessarily apply to doping with growth hormone, etc. where the changes hang around.

If hematocrit remains stable (the non-doping state), then increasing oxygen delivery and utilization takes a lot of hard work and, with equal "genetics", difference in "fitness" comes only from differences in "hard work".

last i checked taking epo causes a ~10% in fitness... but then again i'm not sure what the difference between "fitness" and apparent fitness are?

ric

 

[Fday]

last i checked taking epo causes a ~10% in fitness... but then again i'm not sure what the difference between "fitness" and apparent fitness are?

ric

Seems sraight forward to me. "fitness" is what you deserve from all your hard work. "apparent fitness" is what you have. Sometimes they are the same, sometimes they are not.