Where does power come from?
- Thread starter Piotr
- Start date
Probably not very accurate. I concede you know a lot more than I do about what went on back then. Sorry someone so stupid and with an obviously flawed memory is allowed to take up all this band width. Good thing I am not under oath or I would be in big trouble.vadiver said:You did not check what the website says about YOU.
Long term memory, it was this afternoon you were spouting them.
If you can not remember that far back, how accurate are the power numbers. Geesh.
Fday said:Probably not very accurate. I concede you know a lot more than I do about what went on back then. Sorry someone so stupid and with an obviously flawed memory is allowed to take up all this band width. Good thing I am not under oath or I would be in big trouble.
Frank, you have been selling these PC's for several years, what feedback have you got from your first year's customers. What has been their total cumulative power gain from first day of use to the present time or have they put their PC's in cold storage along with their Biopace equipment.
Actually, what these people experience varies a lot. Of those who have continued to use them regularly I suspect they are in "maintenence mode" and seeing little additional improvement from continued use. I think many users stop using them after a couple of years and then try them again later and find out they have lost a lot so they start using them again although this time it seems to come back faster. It appears if you don't use it you eventually lose it. Anyhow, I have no data as to what the total cumulative power gain is for our experienced users after 8 years or so.n crowley said:
Frank
Fday said:
I don't think you have any idea what the power gains are for any of your users...
So, there's one study that's available on PC (the Luttrell study). I can only read the abstract. VO2max doesn't change in this study with 6 weeks of PC use. So, no power increases. At first glance it appears that efficiency changes, but i don't know how they pedalled in the two groups (it could be that the PC group used a lower cadence = better efficiency). Nonetheless, the gold standard is improved power, not efficiency. That is racing (at least in terms of bike racing) is about generating more power when necessary, it's rarely about conserving energy (better efficiency) as we can always be passed another drink/gel/piece of food etc.
The other 'study' (the Cheung one) as mentioned before isn't work anything as there's no control group... looks like something a first year undergrad sports scientist did... (i know Cheung isn't the lead author).
So, all we have after what 8, 10 years? is you mentioning your 40% increase (which obviously never pans out, as mere mortals would become world class pro cyclists) a paper showing a gain in efficiency, and a non-published paper showing an increase in power, but with no controls... Hmmmm.
Thanks,
Ric
Ric,ric_stern/RST said:
Forget the problem of the inadequacy of the studies you see (Luttrell did control for cadence - but that was not in the abstract, a good reason to actually read what you criticize) and every other deficiency you see in me. What did Magnus Backstedt say about the product when you asked him about it? Perfect opportunity here to see what someone really good who has no ax to grind says about them. What is the problem?
Ric,ric_stern/RST said:
I must say I some of your "concerns" have gootten me thinking, even though I suspect you think that is impossible. This could be good news or bad news for you as it seems,according to my analysis, your concerns about PC's seems to hold for pretty much every sacred cow out there. Anyhow, I am working on a way to try to answer your (and my) questions. I hope to announce it within the next couple of weeks. It won't answer your concerns immediately but will, I hope, set things in motion to answer them eventually. I want to thank you for being so persistent. One of the reasons I hang out here is to try to understand the predjudices that prevent understanding the product. I am giving you the major credit for this and I am working on the problem. What bothers me about the data is a little different than what you espouse here but you were the major impetus that caused me to do this analysis and consider this change in direction.
Thanks again. Stand by.
Oh, this doesn't mean you are off the hook on asking Magnus his opinion of the product.
Fday said:
Yeah, i said i can only read the abstract. while i would prefer to read the full study, the significant data should always be included in the abstract. I thus, therefore questioned the point i was making (about cadence).
As i pointed out the other day, Magnus blew by me on a hill - i was at the end of my ride, and after thinking for a couple of secs i did decide to chase him. Unfortunately, my lack of form (as mentioned several pages back i think or at least previously mentioned at the forum to you, when detraining was discussed) meant that even though i closed the gap on him and almost caught him at the top of the drag (600 W for 30-secs) i 'blew' at the top and went backwards rapidly. i couldn't have caught him or spoken to him.
additionally, while i often see him out training, we're often going in different directions and i suspect that he isn't likely to turn round and come for a chat if i shout "oi you" at him (or anything else). I've no idea where he exactly lives to have a chat with him, and to be honest i'd think that's an invasion of privacy if i did turn up at his house wanting to chat to him about PC's. That means i'm only likely to ask him on the road.
In all honesty, i would expect Magnus to be the consumate pro and to wax lyrical about PCs whether he uses them or not, or a little bit or whatever. I've been on some sponsored teams, and i feel one of the key PR lessons is to always big up the sponsors product. Anyone that doesn't needs to be sacked.
Of course Magnus may not be sponsored by you and may have bought them, and while i don't wish to appear churlish and face the wrath of someone far bigger than me ;-) at the end of the day Magnus isn't a sports scientist or exercise physiologist etc. I'm not disagreeing that your cranks aren't hard to ride, because i'm sure they are, but just because something is hard to do, doesn't mean it will make you better (although i presume that riding PCs will make you better at riding PCs). The question is: do riding PCs with the same training as not riding PCs, make you more powerful (in the order of 40%) than not using PCs with the same training. There is no evidence to support that they do. There is anecdotal evidence that they do (as provided by Frank) and logical evidence that they don't (i.e., no 2nd or 3rd cat rider has, as far as i'm aware, gained 40% power, which would have meant they'd have become a world class pro). Additionally, some pros use PCs and there's been no shift in the speeds of bike racing caused by people using them (and therefore likely no power increase).
Ric
Ric, something that someone controls for when gathering the "significant data" they are looking for is not "significant data" that is usually put in an abstract. It is a detail that lets the interested reader check to see if the study design was sound or had significant flaws. The most significant data was the energy efficiency improvement and they put that in the abstract.ric_stern/RST said:
You live near him and he is injured now, not like he is in the final stages of his build up for the TDF. It is an excuse. If you really wanted to find out about these things you would. You are afraid of what he might say and if he did "wax lyrical" you are telling us you would discount it and not pass it on to the masses then. OK, can't trust anything any of these guys say about anything. Guess the only person who can be trusted is you (and, maybe, Andrew Coggan) because there couldnt possibly be any bias there.
OK, instead of asking him what he thinks about them, why don't you ask him how he happend to get on them? Who told him about them, what did they say? And what does his coach thing about his using something that is hard but can't possibly make him any better, certainly not 40% better. Or, ask him if he has recommended them to any other pros, and if so, why? I'll bet he is on them simply because of the color, he like the color. Find out for us.
Frank
Fday said:
you misunderstand what i wrote: i wasn't (necessarily) saying the cadence was significant data. i was saying that significant is included in the abstract and i didn't know what the cadence was a significant point or not.
Still, you've moved this away from the real point i was making, that for the most part efficiency isn't the be all or end all. Cycling is about making more power (which is why people take drugs like rH-Epo -- so that they can generate more power).
other than the town he lives in, i have no idea where he lives. you want i should knock on everyone's door in the town?
given that he is ex-directory (the telephone directory), i'm guessing he values his privacy.
as i said before, and with all due respect to Magnus, he ain't a sports scientist.
OK, can't trust anything any of these guys say about anything. Guess the only person who can be trusted is you (and, maybe, Andrew Coggan) because there couldnt possibly be any bias there.
there's lots of people i trust. Each of those people i may trust at different things (e.g., i trust my wife is great at looking after our baby amongst many other things, i wouldn't trust her though to understand a paper on sports science).
the point still applies - that is just because other pros have recommended them doesn't mean they work. No one is arguing that they're hard to use, people who don't understand certain things may not understand the mechanisms involved. In other words, top class cyclists who are excellent at riding a bike try something closely related to 'normal' cycling and struggle badly. It's easy (if perhaps you don't understand the underlying mechanisms) to think that because it's difficult, it'll make you better.
ric
You misunderstand what I wrote and that is the point. You don't really care what the study actually says as long as you can criticise it because the results do not comport with your bias.ric_stern/RST said:
Efficiency is about how much power actually gets to the wheel (where it counts) compared to how much the rider expends. Increasing VO2 max makes absolutely zero difference if that increase is not somehow gotten to the wheel. But, they didn't directly measure power so you can't get it. What is to get?
No, but I suspect if you really wanted to talk with him you could figure out a way how. It is not like my mother trying to talk with Lance Armstron because she lives in the same town and wants to. I suspect you could figure out a way if you wanted to.
No, but he has won P-R. Perhaps he might not be able to tell you exactly what is going on but surely his take on the product (and why he uses it) must be worth something. What just blows my mind about you and those other supposed eminent sports scientists, like Andrew Coggan, is the complete lack of any curiosity here. Here we have the winners of races like P-R, the Olympics, the World Championships, and all three grand tours who supposedly have used and like the cranks and you aren't the least bit curious and would discount anything they might say because they are not sports scientists. Where is the curiosity? Where is the desire to prove my "daft" claims wrong in view of all the easily influenced pros who have fallen for my crazy story?
And apparently you don't trust cycling champions to talk about cycling and their training regimen. What could they possibly know?
The point still applies. Doesn't the fact that the list of those who do use them is pretty extensive give you a little pause for thought? Where is the curiosity as to why? The fact they use them is not proof they work but it surely is evidence they might work and you don't care to even look into it. Bizarre.
Although, as i said, I find your reluctance interesting and informative to me and it has helped me to better understand the mindset of others out there. Thanks.
Fday said:
That's not at all what i said. I said that they may not understand the mechanisms involved (in terms of the underlying physiology). That's not a slight on them, wasn't intended as such, so stop bending my words.
Ric
Frank again you show you do not know what you are talking about.Fday said:
The data is collected and that is it. They do not collect significant data and data that is not significant. They collect data.
Once they have all of the data, they start to tabulate it as see what it says. They may find "significant results" or they may find statistically significant results. Sidnificant results do not mean a whole lot. The fact that they did not mention statistically significant, means the results were not statisticlally significant.
I have asked you to define Gross Efficiency before. Now you are claiming it to be the amount of power getting to the wheels. Since you have very little credibility on what you say, and what you remember. Would you please look up the study and let us know what the researchers defined Gross Efficiency as. Something tells me it is not the power to the wheels. If it is, that makes no sense in the bennifits of your product.
Please provide the study definition of GE.
From the study:vadiver said:
Gross efficiency was determined using the mean respiratory values from the gases collected and the resistance applied during the pretraining and posttraining submaximal rides. The values obtained from the average work performed against the resistance and the energy expended from the RER value were converted into caloric equivlents (kcal-min^-1) using the Weir equation (30), and then multiplied by 100 to yield a percentage value as identified previously.
Since I know you will ask, although I don't expect you to know what it means, RER means respiratory exchange ratio.
