Powercranks

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bill who? said:

Quoted message said:

Hi. I'm new the the group but thought this would be the right place to ask. Just got a set of
Powercranks and put them on the bike I've been using on my Computrainer. Gee, I used to enjoy
my Computrainer! Now I can only ride it for about 3 miles! Anyone else had experience with
Powercranks? Does this get better or is this why I see them on e-bay so often?

Quoted message said:

Here is some interesting feedback:

pezcyclingnews.compezcyclingnews.comOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

The author, Josh Horowitz, should be comming upon his one month update shortly.

That makes painful reading for me, having ridden Power Cranks on a demo just long enough to
understand what the concept is. No doubt it is exhausting and it builds new muscles to do a task
that ordinary cranks make unnecessary. The easiest way to return the foot/pedal/leg from the
bottom of the stroke to the next power stroke is to let it ride. That is, unless you don;t have
two reasonably equal legs that are balanced when you sit on the bicycle without a chain.

If you see two riders, one with weight lifter muscles and a slim, no fat rider with big lungs, I
believe that most riders will recognize the bikie as the slender guy. That's because only for
sprints are big extra muscles useful. The limit of most fit bicyclists is not muscles but
cardiovascular. More muscles and using otherwise unused muscles in propulsion is someone's dream
of a speed secret.

This goes in the same bucket as round pedaling and ankling.

This sounds so much like patent medicine with no supporting evidence:

Save your debunking for Easter bunnies, Keebler elves and thinner thighs in 30 days.

tinyurl.com2nthpOpen ↗

There is plenty of empirical observation plus it is now supported by some scientific testing which
at the very least would require the most cynical pundit to re-evaluate their position. With your
demonstrated bias and misconceptions of physiological function I wouldn't even consider you worthy
of that category.

Phil Holman

Quoted message said:

I hadn't though of it that way but now that you mention it, it is a great act of faith, a type of
religion. As long as there is that faint thread of credibility there will be faithful followers,
the fainter the thread the greater the faith. People love to believe in unbelievable things.

Jobst: "Faith" and "belief systems" aren't such a terrible thing; people do tend to succeed at
that which they believe in. I have no doubt that my employee is now pedaling more smoothly,
and developing power more equally in both legs. He is probably even able to ride faster now
because of it.

But... if he'd demonstrated the same amount of resolve at other types of training, he may have
accomplished similar or even better results. But there is obviously something that appeals to him
about the Powercranks, something that caused him to buy into the religion as it were. For him, it's
possible they might be the best thing to come along. For someone else, absolutely not. Particularly
for the poster who expected to get used to them in just a few rides!!!

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com

<[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

Quoted message said:

Hi. I'm new the the group but thought this would be the right place to ask. Just got a set of
Powercranks and put them on the bike I've been using on my Computrainer. Gee, I used to enjoy
my Computrainer! Now I can only ride it for about 3 miles! Anyone else had experience with
Powercranks? Does this get better or is this why I see them on e-bay so often?

Quoted message said:

One of our employees uses Powercranks; it's taken him months and months and months to get
proficient at them. This is apparently normal; they require a degree of dedication that goes
beyond simple logic... you've really got to believe in them in an almost religious manner.

I hadn't though of it that way but now that you mention it, it is a great act of faith, a type of
religion. As long as there is that faint thread of credibility there will be faithful followers,
the fainter the thread the greater the faith. People love to believe in unbelievable things.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

Tim McNamara said:

Terry Morse said:

Even in a flat TT comparison, it's not Indurain's muscle mass that makes him faster than
Pantani. Indurain simply has a bigger cardiovascular engine. Pantani's power-to-weight ratio is
higher, even though his max. power output is lower.

You also have to factor in aerodynamics; the two are not going to be that much different but
Indurain has more power available by having much more muscle mass. So while Pantani's power-to-
weight ratio is better, Indurain's "power-to-drag" ratio is superior. The math has been published
on this, jeez, years ago.

Indurain's greater muscle mass would be of no consequence if he didn't have the massive
cardiovascular engine to drive them. Cycling is an aerobic activity, not a strength activity;
Indurain has more power because his engine is bigger. Except for sprints, the limit of performance
in cycling is not the amount of leg muscle.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA terrymorse.combikeOpen ↗

Phil Holman said:

Quoted message said:

This goes in the same bucket as round pedaling and ankling.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This sounds so much like patent medicine with no supporting evidence:

Quoted message said:

Save your debunking for Easter bunnies, Keebler elves and thinner thighs in 30 days.

Quoted message said:

tinyurl.com2nthpOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

There is plenty of empirical observation plus it is now supported by some scientific testing which
at the very least would require the most cynical pundit to re-evaluate their position. With your
demonstrated bias and misconceptions of physiological function I wouldn't even consider you worthy
of that category.

The article is full of qualified claims that can mean almost anything. Let's see how the same high
level racers perform on TT's before and after this regimen. For instance, how did they do on the Mt
Evans Hill Climb or on a flat one rather than "better gross efficiency on a submaximal ride".

This like many gimmicks of the past will fade into obscurity after all the hyperbole.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

Jim Riley said:

The verdict of the experts is in: sub-sprint-intensity cycling performance is completely
determined by cardiovascular capacity and wind resistance, with weight also playing a role only on
steep climbs. Having thought this through to its logical conclusion, I hereby offer three
suggestions that I believe will revolutionize cycling as we know it:

1. Lower your seat and handlebars by six inches; you'll probably have to purchase a smaller frame,
but it will be worth it. Sitting high enough to straighten the legs to within 30 degrees or so
of full extension is a waste. People do it in the name of "efficiency" or "muscular endurance"
or some such pseudo-science, but obviously if you sit six inches lower you'll still have the
same cardiovascular capacity, hence the same power. Your wind resistance will be considerably
less due to your lower profile, so you'll go faster.

2. The appropriate innovation in cranks is not PowerCranks but ShortCranks -- the shorter the
better, but something in the neighborhood of 60 mm should suffice. Any machine shop should be
able to make this modification to your existing cranks, as long as they're not carbon. This
will further stabilize and reduce your aerodynamic profile, and again your cardiovascular
system will produce as many watts as ever. The result, of course, is that you'll go faster
still. As an additional benefit, bicycles fitted with ShortCranks can have lower bottom
brackets, allowing you to sit closer to the ground and achieve even less wind resistance; frame
builders, however, will need some time to catch up to this innovation....

Here is a bicycle that has taken reduced frontal area to the extreme of using a video camera instead
of a windshield. The limiting factor in reducing frontal area in this case is the space required for
the reciprocating motion of the rider's legs.

The approach is effective, as the bike has exceeded 78-mph (125-kph) in flat, no wind conditions,
with an amateur rider.

<http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/whpsc2002/photos_sat/whpsc2002-sprints-kyleedge.jpg>.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities

Tim McNamara <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Andre said:

finally a scientific response.

Quoted message said:

Carl Fogel:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If it's a Hawthorne-style placebo effect (initial improvement caused by being observed), then
it will join many other contraptions that motivated people to work harder and then credit the
contraptions with the results of their extra effort.

The Hawthorne effect is an interesting notion in this regard, although it's not a placebo effect
per se. There are similarities in the two concepts that make them easy to confuse.

Here's some information on the Hawthorne effect for the bored:
psy.gla.ac.ukhawth.htmlOpen ↗

Dear Tim,

I agree that the two are technically different effects, but I think that their similarities combine
quite nicely.

As in the true Hawthorne effect, the subject seems to be motivated by being observed in our typical
stirring tales of bicycle improvement, in which--sweet Jesus!--the subject is also the observer.

(There is no Hawthorne effect when the subject is observed secretly--you can watch me for weeks
through a telescope without motivating me to pedal any faster.)

As in a true placebo effect, the subject also has pre-existing expectations that whatever
contraption is being tested will help him, which it often does, suggesting that expectations have
consequences when it's important how hard we try.

(There is no placebo effect, for example, when people are told that a daily sugar tablet will make
them grow taller--neither effort nor psychology has any known effect on growth rate.)

Whatever the combined effects should be called, it's remarkable how often a cleaned chain, new
tires, a different gear ratio, and a host of other tricks produce improved times--for a week or so.

After that, we tend to drift back into slower times because we've forgotten how fast that new piece
of equipment was going to make us and are no longer "observing" ourselves closely enough during the
ride to motivate ourselves.

(Real mechanical advantages don't dwindle.)

I recently produced a marked improvement in my daily times just by noting what my watch said at
seven check-points on my daily loop. I suspect that seven new goals motivated me to pay attention
and pedal.

When I stopped worrying about reaching each checkpoint, I relaxed--and my overall time dropped
noticeably.

Carl Fogel

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I never thought such an innocent question would provoke such controversy! Clearly
the group is quite divided on this subject! As for me, I'm an age-group triathlete who usually
finishes in the top 20% or so of the pack. Strongest in the bike, worst on the run. Looking forward
to doing some TT's in the spring.

What intrigued me was the idea that the PowerCranks might wake up some muscles that may have not
been used for a while (or ever!) Took a look on e-Bay and found some. So, I'll give them a try, keep
a journal, and see if I can make some scientific sense out of all of this (I'm a Ph.D.
physiologist/biomechanical engineer). If the experiment fails, look for the on e-Bay! Also, time to
dig up those articles on the biomechanics and energetics of cycling! I'll be back again when I can
pedal for about an hour or so at a decent cadence. BTW - There is NO WAY I'm going to ride these
things on anything but the Computrainer!! Meanwhile, I'll be an avid reader of this NG and chime in
now and then when I think I can make a contribution. Thanks for all the feedback.

John

Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles said:

Quoted message said:

I hadn't though of it that way but now that you mention it, it is a great act of faith, a type of
religion. As long as there is that faint thread of credibility there will be faithful followers,
the fainter the thread the greater the faith. People love to believe in unbelievable things.

Jobst: "Faith" and "belief systems" aren't such a terrible thing; people do tend to succeed at
that which they believe in. I have no doubt that my employee is now pedaling more smoothly,
and developing power more equally in both legs. He is probably even able to ride faster now
because of it.

But... if he'd demonstrated the same amount of resolve at other types of training, he may have
accomplished similar or even better results. But there is obviously something that appeals to him
about the Powercranks, something that caused him to buy into the religion as it were. For him, it's
possible they might be the best thing to come along. For someone else, absolutely not. Particularly
for the poster who expected to get used to them in just a few rides!!!

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com

<[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

> Hi. I'm new the the group but thought this would be the right place to ask. Just got a set of
> Powercranks and put them on the bike I've been using on my Computrainer. Gee, I used to enjoy
> my Computrainer! Now I can only ride it for about 3 miles! Anyone else had experience with
> Powercranks? Does this get better or is this why I see them on e-bay so often?

Quoted message said:

One of our employees uses Powercranks; it's taken him months and months and months to get
proficient at them. This is apparently normal; they require a degree of dedication that goes
beyond simple logic... you've really got to believe in them in an almost religious manner.

I hadn't though of it that way but now that you mention it, it is a great act of faith, a type of
religion. As long as there is that faint thread of credibility there will be faithful followers,
the fainter the thread the greater the faith. People love to believe in unbelievable things.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Phil Holman said:

Quoted message said:

This goes in the same bucket as round pedaling and ankling.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This sounds so much like patent medicine with no supporting

evidence:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Save your debunking for Easter bunnies, Keebler elves and thinner thighs in 30 days.

Quoted message said:

tinyurl.com2nthpOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

There is plenty of empirical observation plus it is now supported by some scientific testing
which at the very least would require the most cynical pundit to re-evaluate their position.
With your demonstrated bias and misconceptions of physiological function I wouldn't even
consider you worthy of that category.

The article is full of qualified claims that can mean almost anything. Let's see how the same high
level racers perform on TT's before and after this regimen. For instance, how did they do on the
Mt Evans Hill Climb or on a flat one rather than "better gross efficiency on a submaximal ride".

Of course something like that is harder to control experimentally and in my own case I've seen my
performance improvements discounted so why would anyone else's be different and why the need for
high level racers? A high level of performance isn't a requirement, in fact with all uncertainty of
enhanced performance supplements, I would think a mid-pack rider out of the amateur ranks would be a
better candidate for such an experiment. I say this from a scientific viewpoint and not from someone
who has a marketing interest.

Quoted message said:

This like many gimmicks of the past will fade into obscurity after all the hyperbole.

Possibly, although this won't have anything to do with whether they work or not. There is no free
lunch with the cranks and the fact that they are such hard work may maintain their use by the more
stalwart athlete. Phil Holman

"Phil Holman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bill who? said:

> Hi. I'm new the the group but thought this would be the right place to ask. Just got a set of
> Powercranks and put them on the bike I've been using on my Computrainer. Gee, I used to enjoy
> my Computrainer! Now I can only ride it for about 3 miles! Anyone else had experience with
> Powercranks? Does this get better or is this why I see them on e-bay so often?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Here is some interesting feedback:

pezcyclingnews.compezcyclingnews.comOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

The author, Josh Horowitz, should be comming upon his one month update shortly.

That makes painful reading for me, having ridden Power Cranks on a demo just long enough to
understand what the concept is. No doubt it is exhausting and it builds new muscles to do a task
that ordinary cranks make unnecessary. The easiest way to return the foot/pedal/leg from the
bottom of the stroke to the next power stroke is to let it ride. That is, unless you don;t have
two reasonably equal legs that are balanced when you sit on the bicycle without a chain.

If you see two riders, one with weight lifter muscles and a slim, no fat rider with big lungs, I
believe that most riders will recognize the bikie as the slender guy. That's because only for
sprints are big extra muscles useful. The limit of most fit bicyclists is not muscles but
cardiovascular. More muscles and using otherwise unused muscles in propulsion is someone's dream
of a speed secret.

This goes in the same bucket as round pedaling and ankling.

This sounds so much like patent medicine with no supporting evidence:

Save your debunking for Easter bunnies, Keebler elves and thinner thighs in 30 days.

tinyurl.com2nthpOpen ↗

There is plenty of empirical observation plus it is now supported by some scientific testing which
at the very least would require the most cynical pundit to re-evaluate their position. With your
demonstrated bias and misconceptions of physiological function I wouldn't even consider you worthy
of that category.

Phil Holman

Dear Phil,

I remember seeing that web page before, but was disappointed to find that it's just the abstract.

Unless I missed something, the actual article requires either a $105 subscription or else twenty
bucks for a single article.

Can you suggest any similar links that aren't quite so expensive?

Or offer a quick interpretation for the layman of what the somewhat dense abstract is saying?

Thanks,

Carl Fogel

"Carl Fogel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Phil Holman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bill who? writes:

>> Hi. I'm new the the group but thought this would be the right

place

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> to ask. Just got a set of Powercranks and put them on the bike I've been using on my
>> Computrainer. Gee, I used to enjoy my Computrainer! Now I can only ride it for about 3
>> miles!

Anyone

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> else had experience with Powercranks? Does this get better or

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> this why I see them on e-bay so often?

Quoted message said:

> Here is some interesting feedback:

pezcyclingnews.compezcyclingnews.comOpen ↗

> The author, Josh Horowitz, should be comming upon his one month update shortly.

That makes painful reading for me, having ridden Power Cranks on a demo just long enough to
understand what the concept is. No doubt

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is exhausting and it builds new muscles to do a task that ordinary cranks make unnecessary.
The easiest way to return the

foot/pedal/leg

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

from the bottom of the stroke to the next power stroke is to let

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

ride. That is, unless you don;t have two reasonably equal legs

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

are balanced when you sit on the bicycle without a chain.

If you see two riders, one with weight lifter muscles and a slim,

no

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

fat rider with big lungs, I believe that most riders will

recognize

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the bikie as the slender guy. That's because only for sprints are

big

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

extra muscles useful. The limit of most fit bicyclists is not

muscles

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

but cardiovascular. More muscles and using otherwise unused

muscles

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in propulsion is someone's dream of a speed secret.

This goes in the same bucket as round pedaling and ankling.

This sounds so much like patent medicine with no supporting

evidence:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Save your debunking for Easter bunnies, Keebler elves and thinner

thighs

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in 30 days.

tinyurl.com2nthpOpen ↗

There is plenty of empirical observation plus it is now supported by some scientific testing
which at the very least would require the

most

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

cynical pundit to re-evaluate their position. With your demonstrated bias and misconceptions of
physiological function I wouldn't even consider you worthy of that category.

Phil Holman

Dear Phil,

I remember seeing that web page before, but was disappointed to find that it's just the abstract.

Unless I missed something, the actual article requires either a $105 subscription or else twenty
bucks for a single article.

Can you suggest any similar links that aren't quite so expensive?

Or offer a quick interpretation for the layman of what the somewhat dense abstract is saying?

A rough interpretation is "hand over your money and don't be such a tight wad" :-)

Basically there was a gross efficiency improvement of around 2.6%. A normal efficiency of say 22.5%
means that of the total energy expended, only 22.5% of it actually ends up propelling the rider. An
increase of
2.6% means that now 26.1% is propelling the rider. This is somewhat loosely confirmed by the lower
heartrate at the same level of power output. One could extrapolate this into a potential
performance improvement but it would have been nice if the test had included a TT type effort. My
own performance improvement at 2001 US Masters Nats was +1mph (27.2mph) on my previous best ever
TT speed. I estimated my power increase at around 10%.

Phil Holman

Quoted message said:

I'm a Ph.D. physiologist/biomechanical engineer

Then you should know that Google Groups can be your friend. tinyurl.com28e2aOpen ↗

In one of those threads is a short exchange between Frank Day, the inventor of Powercranks, and Jim
Martin, who was present at the ACSM meetings when the abstract for the recently published article
was discussed.

"Tim McNamara" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hjalmar Duklæt said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you see two riders, one with weight lifter muscles and a slim, no fat rider with big lungs,
I believe that most riders will recognize the bikie as the slender guy. That's because only for
sprints are big extra muscles useful. The limit of most fit bicyclists is not muscles but
cardiovascular. More muscles and using otherwise unused muscles in propulsion is someone's
dream of a speed secret.

Well, this is probably true for maximum effort but I would believe that using extra muscle
groups to do the work would be benefitial when it comes to endurance and submaximal efforts. It
would take longer before the mucles were exhausted. During a 5 hours road race I guess this is
what counts, not your cardiovascular maximum limit.Or am I completely wrong here?

For long events, the limits are very much cardiovascular. Weight is weight, whether it's fat,
muscle or bike, and it takes more work to haul weight uphill. In any sort of race with any
significant climbing, the lighter rider is at an advantage and it doesn't matter if it's fat
or muscle.

I'm not talking about weight. I'm talking about using more muscle groups to do the work. And I don't
understand that doing so isn't benefitial. Why are xc skiers using their arms (using extra muscle
groups) when skiing if it's the cardiovascular system that's the limiting factor? They could have
thrown their poles into the forrest and saved some weight and only using their legs harder. I don't
believe in this. Hjalmar (cyclist and skier from Norway)

Hjalmar Duklæt said:

Quoted message said:

I'm not talking about weight. I'm talking about using more muscle groups to do the work. And I
don't understand that doing so isn't benefitial. Why are xc skiers using their arms (using extra
muscle groups) when skiing if it's the cardiovascular system that's the limiting factor? They
could have thrown their poles into the forrest and saved some weight and only using their legs
harder. I don't believe in this. Hjalmar (cyclist and skier from Norway)

You're concluding from this that using more muscle groups makes cycling faster. I conclude that
cycling isn't xc skiing.

Hi, I just got an idea for a cheap power crank. get a crankset and instead of putting the pedals
opposite to each other, put them next to each other. so, when you pedal, instead of having one foot
pushing down helping the other come up, you'll be forced to lift with both legs making them used to
pulling up. You can accomplish this by taking one foot out of the pedal and pedaling with one foot.
However, pulling up with both feet at the same time really isolates the hamstrings. Shall I take
this idea to Las Vegas?

For those who don't think that pulling gives you an advantage, here is a scientific test. Get
yourself on a trainer and put a pedal at 12 o'clock. push down with your hand to six o clock and
stop, letting the wheel spin, and count the turns of the wheel. Now, put the pedal at six o
clock, and lift with hands to 12:00 and continue the full circle all the way down to 6:00 and
count the wheel turns. If you get the same number of turns, it makes no difference. If you get
more turns, it does.

BTW, I want to sell my power crank concept to Sheldon so he can try to sell on april 2nd.

Andres

[email hidden] wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I never thought such an innocent question would provoke such controversy!
Clearly the group is quite divided on this subject! As for me, I'm an age-group triathlete who
usually finishes in the top 20% or so of the pack. Strongest in the bike, worst on the run.
Looking forward to doing some TT's in the spring.

What intrigued me was the idea that the PowerCranks might wake up some muscles that may have not
been used for a while (or ever!) Took a look on e-Bay and found some. So, I'll give them a try,
keep a journal, and see if I can make some scientific sense out of all of this (I'm a Ph.D.
physiologist/biomechanical engineer). If the experiment fails, look for the on e-Bay! Also, time
to dig up those articles on the biomechanics and energetics of cycling! I'll be back again when I
can pedal for about an hour or so at a decent cadence. BTW - There is NO WAY I'm going to ride
these things on anything but the Computrainer!! Meanwhile, I'll be an avid reader of this NG and
chime in now and then when I think I can make a contribution. Thanks for all the feedback.

John

Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles said:

Quoted message said:

I hadn't though of it that way but now that you mention it, it is a great act of faith, a type
of religion. As long as there is that faint thread of credibility there will be faithful
followers, the fainter the thread the greater the faith. People love to believe in unbelievable
things.

Jobst: "Faith" and "belief systems" aren't such a terrible thing; people do tend to succeed at
that which they believe in. I have no doubt that my employee is now pedaling more smoothly,
and developing power more equally in both legs. He is probably even able to ride faster now
because of it.

But... if he'd demonstrated the same amount of resolve at other types of training, he may have
accomplished similar or even better results. But there is obviously something that appeals to him
about the Powercranks, something that caused him to buy into the religion as it were. For him,
it's possible they might be the best thing to come along. For someone else, absolutely not.
Particularly for the poster who expected to get used to them in just a few rides!!!

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReaction.com

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky writes:

>> Hi. I'm new the the group but thought this would be the right place to ask. Just got a set
>> of Powercranks and put them on the bike I've been using on my Computrainer. Gee, I used to
>> enjoy my Computrainer! Now I can only ride it for about 3 miles! Anyone else had experience
>> with Powercranks? Does this get better or is this why I see them on e-bay so often?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> One of our employees uses Powercranks; it's taken him months and months and months to get
> proficient at them. This is apparently normal; they require a degree of dedication that goes
> beyond simple logic... you've really got to believe in them in an almost religious manner.

I hadn't though of it that way but now that you mention it, it is a great act of faith, a type
of religion. As long as there is that faint thread of credibility there will be faithful
followers, the fainter the thread the greater the faith. People love to believe in unbelievable
things.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hjalmar Duklæt said:

Quoted message said:

I'm not talking about weight. I'm talking about using more muscle groups to do the work. And I
don't understand that doing so isn't benefitial. Why are xc skiers using their arms (using extra
muscle groups) when skiing if it's the cardiovascular system that's the limiting factor? They
could have thrown their poles into the forrest and saved some weight and only using their legs
harder. I don't believe in this. Hjalmar (cyclist and skier from Norway)

You're concluding from this that using more muscle groups makes cycling faster. I conclude that
cycling isn't xc skiing.

Yeah, in a way I do. Can somebody tell me why using more muscle groups isn't better? And also why do
your muscles get tired/exhausted? Is it only because your cardiovascular system is not keeping up,
or can the muscles get tired even if they get enough fuel? I know that I've been a better rider
after starting to use the back stroke actively. Hjalmar

Hjalmar Duklæt said:

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

You're concluding from this that using more muscle groups makes cycling faster. I conclude that
cycling isn't xc skiing.

Yeah, in a way I do. Can somebody tell me why using more muscle groups isn't better? And also why
do your muscles get tired/exhausted? Is it only because your cardiovascular system is not keeping
up, or can the muscles get tired even if they get enough fuel? I know that I've been a better
rider after starting to use the back stroke actively.

I think it's less the number of muscles than which muscles and how exactly they're being used. The
issue then becomes an empirical one, not a theoretical one. Alternating between walking on your
hands and your legs isn't likely to make you walk faster or allow you to walk farther, even though
you're using more muscle groups. Hooking up the muscles that move your eyebrows up-and-down isn't
likely to make you cycle faster or allow you to ride farther, even though you're using more muscle
groups. The question about Powercranks is, in a nutshell, can training the leg flexors help to
increase either power or reduce fatigue in use of the leg extensors? I don't know the answer, but
your xc skiing example is probably the wrong thing to do.

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hjalmar Duklæt said:

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

You're concluding from this that using more muscle groups makes cycling faster. I conclude that
cycling isn't xc skiing.

Yeah, in a way I do. Can somebody tell me why using more muscle groups isn't better? And also
why do your muscles get tired/exhausted? Is it only because your cardiovascular system is not
keeping up, or can the muscles get tired even if they get enough fuel? I know that I've been a
better rider after starting to use the back stroke actively.

I think it's less the number of muscles than which muscles and how exactly they're being used. The
issue then becomes an empirical one, not a theoretical one. Alternating between walking on your
hands and your legs isn't likely to make you walk faster or allow you to walk farther, even though
you're using more muscle groups. Hooking up the muscles that move your eyebrows up-and-down isn't
likely to make you cycle faster or allow you to ride farther, even though you're using more muscle
groups. The question about Powercranks is, in a nutshell, can training the leg flexors help to
increase either power or reduce fatigue in use of the leg extensors? I don't know the answer, but
your xc skiing example is probably the wrong thing to do.

I don't agree. When you're skiing you use both your legs and your arms to move as fast as you can.
In easy flat terrain you will probably use only your arms and thereby spare the muscles in your
legs. Up hill the legs are doing most of the work. Your cardio system is working at your AT. You can
imagine using only your legs and still be at your AT. What do you think would be the better way to
go here? You cannot compare using both your arms and legs here with moving your eyebrows up/down or
alternate between walking on your hands/legs. We are talking about using more muscle groups together
to do more work in order to ride faster/longer on your bike. When you ride a bike you're mainly
using your leg muscles. I cannot understand why using the leg flexors in addition to the lex
extensor will not make you ride both faster and longer. Hjalmar

"Hjalmar Duklæt" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hjalmar Duklæt said:

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote
>
> You're concluding from this that using more muscle groups makes

cycling

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> faster. I conclude that cycling isn't xc skiing.
>
Yeah, in a way I do. Can somebody tell me why using more muscle groups isn't better? And also
why do your muscles get tired/exhausted? Is it only because your cardiovascular system is not
keeping up, or can the muscles get tired even if they get enough fuel? I know that I've been

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

better rider after starting to use the back stroke actively.

I think it's less the number of muscles than which muscles and how

exactly

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

they're being used. The issue then becomes an empirical one, not a theoretical one. Alternating
between walking on your hands and your legs isn't likely to make you walk faster or allow you to
walk farther, even though you're using more muscle groups. Hooking up the muscles that move your
eyebrows up-and-down isn't likely to make you cycle faster or allow you to ride farther, even
though you're using more muscle groups. The question about Powercranks is, in a nutshell, can
training the leg

flexors

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

help to increase either power or reduce fatigue in use of the leg extensors? I don't know the
answer, but your xc skiing example is

probably

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the wrong thing to do.

I don't agree. When you're skiing you use both your legs and your arms to move as fast as you can.
In easy flat terrain you will probably use only your arms and thereby spare the muscles in your
legs. Up hill the legs are doing most of the work. Your cardio system is working at your AT. You
can imagine using only your legs and still be at your AT. What do you think would be the better
way to go here? You cannot compare using both your

arms

Quoted message said:

and legs here with moving your eyebrows up/down or alternate between

walking

Quoted message said:

on your hands/legs. We are talking about using more muscle groups together to do more work in
order to ride faster/longer on your bike. When you ride a bike you're mainly using your leg
muscles. I cannot understand why using the leg flexors in addition to the lex extensor will not
make you ride both faster and longer. Hjalmar

I just come to think of another exampel. There is a former rider here in town that got paralysed
in his legs from a crash with a car during a road race. After he recovered he got a trike where he
is using his arms to peddle. I asked him if he is only pushing the pedals with his arms or if he
both pushes and pulls. What do you think the answere was? And what do you think would be the best
thing to do? And what is the difference using your legs instead of your arms? Do you see the
point? Hjalmar

Hjalmar Duklæt said:

I'm not talking about weight. I'm talking about using more muscle groups to do the work. And I
don't understand that doing so isn't benefitial. Why are xc skiers using their arms (using extra
muscle groups) when skiing if it's the cardiovascular system that's the limiting factor?

Is the cardiovascular system the limiting factor for XC skiing?

Even if it is, it may well be that using legs alone would not make efficient use of the available
power. This is not the case for cycling.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> flcl?

Hjalmar Duklæt said:

I just come to think of another exampel. There is a former rider here in town that got paralysed in
his legs from a crash with a car during a road race. After he recovered he got a trike where he is
using his arms to peddle. I asked him if he is only pushing the pedals with his arms or if he both
pushes and pulls. What do you think the answere was? And what do you think would be the best thing
to do? And what is the difference using your legs instead of your arms?

The difference (as really ought to be blindingly obvious) is that it is enormously more difficult to
develop the arm muscles to a point where they are not the limiting factor rather than the
cardiovascular system, because they are inherently much smaller and not exercised by walking.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> flcl?