pealling push up push down

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

I love the way you bitch about your riders. Good customer care there.



Fair play to Sam, but he's not the fastest cyclist on earth by a long way. He may be the fastest HPV rider though. I'm sure someone will correct me, but the fastest cyclist on earth is probably around a speed of 250 to 300 km/hr.

Ric

Well, you are correct, people have gone faster on a bike. Except those going faster are getting outside assistance (drafting motor vehicles or gravity).

The guarantee is a good starting point, but unfortunately it's impossible to refund the pain and lost training time for those people that didn't feel the PCs were worth it. Most of the reviews indicate that the cranks must be working because of the intense pain and muscle failure experienced during the inital adaptation process, but that's not a very good metric for me and I'm not really willing to wager 3 months of race training on a 'money back guarantee.' It'd take a controlled study to get me off the fence and willing to dedicate 90 days of my training time.


My goodness. Nothing makes you commit to give up 3 months before you decide to stay with them. I would say that 90% of our customers have seen enough positive change within the first two weeks that they have made their decision. We scare a lot of people with some of the transition stories but many experienced cyclists adapt and transition very quickly. Know one knows how they will adapt until they try them themselves

Dr. Stephen Cheung wrote a series of PezCycling articles on his PC use, and while he goes on about how his Polar Index value (something about smooth application of power, I guess) has gone from ~17% to 30% and how that must be a "huge testament to the potential benefits of the device," his MAP (which is something that I can understand) has increased by 10w from his pre-season value of 275w to 285w after 5 months of use. I'd expect most any training plan could yield a 5% increase from pre-season to mid-season performance, so that's not particularly compelling.

I suspect you will be very interested in the results of the study Dr. Cheung is soon to start on PC's. Stay tuned. Maybe you will be convinced to try them by next off season, maybe not. :-)


Regarding efficiency, the argument seems to be that more efficiency translates eventually into more power, and that's not necessarily true. If you take a race car and add a bunch of efficiency measures to it, it will not go faster, it'll just be more efficient (and maybe not even as fast as before). There is very little relationship between things that are powerful and things that are efficient -- the most powerful things are typically very inefficient, and the most efficient things are typically not very powerful.

So, are you saying that efficiency plays absolutely no role in performance so the cyclist should ignore it? Or, saying cyclists should be looking for training techniques to make them less efficient? Some of you folks seem to think that I am saying that if you train on my product it will make you more efficient and because of this you will then be able to win the TDF. Phooey. What I say is if you train on my product you will be better (perhaps a lot better) than you would be without them.

[QUOTE=Fday]Raced all over the world and still have not found one AG or pro triathlete who admits to actually using your PC's. Several blush when the subject comes up, so I assume they spent boocoo bucks on them with no results.

The PC's remind me of the oval chainrings back in the late 80's, which were a scam.:o

Wow, not a single AG or pro triathlete will admit to actually using them? Boy, have I been duped. Thanks for the heads up.

So, are you saying that efficiency plays absolutely no role in performance so the cyclist should ignore it? Or, saying cyclists should be looking for training techniques to make them less efficient?
I'm saying that power and efficiency are two factors that are loosely related at best, and it's power that wins races -- not efficiency. As long as a racer is able to carry enough fuel to get him to the finish line, it makes no difference how efficiently he uses it. Unless we're talking about extreme endurance events, efficiency measures which improve power or leave it unchanged are useful, those which reduce it are not.


What I say is if you train on my product you will be better (perhaps a lot better) than you would be without them.
You'd have to replace a subjective word like 'better' with 'more powerful' in order to get my attention, and have some data to back it up. I look forward to Dr. Cheung's next report.

You'd have to replace a subjective word like 'better' with 'more powerful' in order to get my attention, and have some data to back it up. I look forward to Dr. Cheung's next report.

Your post highlights my catch 22 situation. If I use more objective words to describe what I expect people might see (40% improvement in POWER) I am criticized for being unrealistic. If I use words like 'better' then I am criticized for not using 'more powerful' and told to have data to back it up, even though I have provided lots of anecdotal data and Dr. Cheung reported a 5% improvement, which earlier in this thread was acknowledged as being huge, but it written off by you as being "expected".

One can look at the science and say "yes, I believe it is possible they could help me substantially even though I may doubt I may see 40% improvement" and take a risk on the product now or say, "it may be possible these could benefit me or others but I will wait until there is more data until I throw my money away" or, say "These are a clearly a bunch of crap and studies are not needed for me to know this so I am going to do everything I can to stop others from wasting their money".

If we all took the same approach none of these threads would ever get more than 10 posts long as there would never be any debate.

Your post highlights my catch 22 situation. If I use more objective words to describe what I expect people might see (40% improvement in POWER) I am criticized for being unrealistic. If I use words like 'better' then I am criticized for not using 'more powerful' and told to have data to back it up, even though I have provided lots of anecdotal data and Dr. Cheung reported a 5% improvement, which earlier in this thread was acknowledged as being huge, but it written off by you as being "expected".
Well, to be clear, I think a 5% power improvement from peak fitness would certainly be significant. Dr. Cheung's reported improvement was from his start of pre-season training to mid-season performance, which I'm sure we can agree is a different story completely.

As has been alluded to before, it's not what people *might see* that interests me, it's what people *like me* *have seen* that I'm most concerned with. The catch 22 can only be resolved by having the complete picture.

Mr. Day

In december edition of Inside Triathlon, you advertisment page states that a study done in 2003 demonstrated a statistically significant 10% increase in cycling efficiency in trained cyclists over standard training after only 6 weeks training on the PowerCranks.

Could you comment?

Mr. Day

In december edition of Inside Triathlon, you advertisment page states that a study done in 2003 demonstrated a statistically significant 10% increase in cycling efficiency in trained cyclists over standard training after only 6 weeks training on the PowerCranks.

Could you comment?

That is the Luttrell study I have referenced in this thread before. The study took two groups of experienced cyclists (had to compete in 3 races in last 6 months I believe to qualify), measured their VO2 max, then measured their efficiency during an hour ride at 69% VO2max. They then trained similarly except one group was on PC's an hour 3 x per week. 6 weeks later the one hour efficiency ride was done again at the same power as before. Gross efficiency of the PowerCranks group increased from about 20 to 22%. To put this in real world terms, their HR during this ride dropped 15 beats, from about 160 to about 145 at the same power.

That is the Luttrell study I have referenced in this thread before. The study took two groups of experienced cyclists (had to compete in 3 races in last 6 months I believe to qualify), measured their VO2 max, then measured their efficiency during an hour ride at 69% VO2max. They then trained similarly except one group was on PC's an hour 3 x per week. 6 weeks later the one hour efficiency ride was done again at the same power as before. Gross efficiency of the PowerCranks group increased from about 20 to 22%. To put this in real world terms, their HR during this ride dropped 15 beats, from about 160 to about 145 at the same power.
So.... we are equating a drop in HR with an increase in efficiency? I want to make sure I understand your terminology.

So.... we are equating a drop in HR with an increase in efficiency? I want to make sure I understand your terminology.I don't know if that's what he's saying, but I can tell you that HR is directly correlated with cadence, holding power constant, at least for me and anybody else I know who has conducted the test. The problem is in making the leap that a drop in HR is somehow a good thing.

I don't know if that's what he's saying, but I can tell you that HR is directly correlated with cadence, holding power constant, at least for me and anybody else I know who has conducted the test. The problem is in making the leap that a drop in HR is somehow a good thing.
Or just as importantly RDO that this increase in "efficiency" will allow someone to generate a comparable 22% more power. Which isn't proven. There may be little or no correlation between HR and power output for any number of reasons. But at least I thionk I understand the grifters pitch now. If he is measuring improvement using HR then why bother?

That is the Luttrell study I have referenced in this thread before. The study took two groups of experienced cyclists (had to compete in 3 races in last 6 months I believe to qualify), measured their VO2 max, then measured their efficiency during an hour ride at 69% VO2max. They then trained similarly except one group was on PC's an hour 3 x per week. 6 weeks later the one hour efficiency ride was done again at the same power as before. Gross efficiency of the PowerCranks group increased from about 20 to 22%. To put this in real world terms, their HR during this ride dropped 15 beats, from about 160 to about 145 at the same power.Thanks, are the results and protocol published & available online?

So.... we are equating a drop in HR with an increase in efficiency? I want to make sure I understand your terminology.

No, they actually measured oxygen consumption, that is how they calculated gross efficiency. The HR drop is something everyone knows. For the same power these riders were 15 bpm less than they were 6 weeks ago.

I don't know if that's what he's saying, but I can tell you that HR is directly correlated with cadence, holding power constant, at least for me and anybody else I know who has conducted the test. The problem is in making the leap that a drop in HR is somehow a good thing.

The researchers controlled for cadence.

Thanks, are the results and protocol published & available online?

Abstract and article can be obtained here: http://nsca.allenpress.com/nscaonline/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1519%2F1533-4287(2003)017%3C0785:EOSTUP%3E2.0.CO%3B2

Frank, these are nice study results. And the % promised on your add (10%), sounds more realistic than the 40% increase in FT power you seem to defend so vigorously.

Anyhow, I find your debates interesting. Thanks

:)

Frank, these are nice study results. And the % promised on your add (10%), sounds more realistic than the 40% increase in FT power you seem to defend so vigorously.

Anyhow, I find your debates interesting. Thanks

:)

That 10% improvement occurred in only 6 weeks with only 3 x per week use. I would have never predicted that kind of improvement was possible in that time frame with that little use and I still think it unlikely most will see it, so I don't claim it. My 40% claim requires 6 to 9 months of pretty much exclusive use to see and I think is a much more "reasonable" expectation even though it doesn't seem so to most.

Frank, these are nice study results. And the % promised on your add (10%), sounds more realistic than the 40% increase in FT power you seem to defend so vigorously.

Anyhow, I find your debates interesting. Thanks

:)

One more thing I might add. Luttrell looked at efficiency changes, not at power. As you can tell from some of the posts here, efficiency gains being translated into power increases is not a no-brainer for many. So, Luttrell cannot be used as a basis for claiming any power improvements or I would really be ripped a new you-know-what by the nit-pickers and charlatan exposers. So, I use my own data I collected (unpublished) and the anecdotal reports of users as the basis of my claims. I will stick with the claims until I see data that suggests something less because I think that is what my typical customer will see.

If you find the debates interesting I suspect you are actually taking time to carefully read what is actually being posted. Thanks for that.

Frank

As you can tell from some of the posts here, efficiency gains being translated into power increases is not a no-brainer for many. Myself, I am not convinced that a gain in efficiency monitored at 70% VO2Max automatically translate into a gain in max power on a 1 hour Time Trial, but again, these are nice study results. Please note that these results where consistant with the protocol used. When you train for 6 weeks at 70% VO2Max, you can't really expect increasing max power on time trials events.

If a customer calls you for a refund, telling that he has been training for 6 months at 70% VO2Max, but don't see any improvement at 90% VO2Max for the same duration, you will probably explain him some training/adaptation principles. I think that it's the reason why some poeple don't easily buy the 40% power improvement.

But keep up doing the good work Frank, and Merry Christmas Sales !

:)

If a customer calls you for a refund, telling that he has been training for 6 months at 70% VO2Max, but don't see any improvement at 90% VO2Max for the same duration, you will probably explain him some training/adaptation principles. I think that it's the reason why some poeple don't easily buy the 40% power improvement.:)

I have never had a customer call at 6 months and ask for a refund, probably because the refund policy is good for only 3 months. Further, most customers don't even have power measurement devices and oxygen consumption devices so they don't know what their power is doing at various percentages of VO2 max. All they know is what their speedometer and effort meter tells them.

I personally think the reason some (most) people don't buy (easily or not) the 40% number is because it is so outrageously outside of anyones normal experience that it seems totally unbelievable. However, if true (which I believe it to be - again, for my typical customer), it points out how inadequate current training techniques are for maximizing the potential of athletes. Even if the number is only 20% (what if it is 60?) this technology would still represent a huge improvement over standard training (which I believe it does). How can I represent to potential customers that I believe this technology represents a huge leap forward without putting out a number that says that (and that I actually believe to be true)? Then, I give them the best return policy in the business, to let them decide for themselves if they are worth the money to them. About 3 in a 1000 send them back so to me which, in and of itself, tells me I am not grossly misrepresenting what these do or can do.

Frank