Page 2 - PowerCranks: Worth the Money?

10-06.-2004, 09:31 PM

#16

n crowley

Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2003

Location: dublin ireland

Posts: 426

Quote:

Originally posted by ricstern
I'm ignorant? not sure how you work that out as i'm a professional cycle coach, and a sports scientist.

Your strength isn't increased with power cranks or any other form of endurance cycle training. additionally, how would you know your efficiency increases? efficiency can only be calculated by measuring your expired respiratory gases, and by using a power meter.

i have not anywhere said it isn't hard to do single leg cycling or to use Power Cranks. I've actually agreed that it is hard.

why does hurting your legs mean you'll improve? i could hit my legs with a brick or some such object. that'll hurt, but it won't improve my cycling :-).

we already know, that elite compared to less elite cyclists push down more and pull up less, yet these are better cyclists.

ric

==============================================

Leaving aside the commonsense tactics in road racing and the
latest craze of powermeters, how does a cycling coach differ
from a running coach ?

11-06.-2004, 04:07 AM	#17
IMHooker Registered User Join Date: May 2003 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 20	Ric, (1) Lighten up, buddy... it's not clear to me that he was referring to you. If he was referring to some of the strident assholes on the other thread, he was right. (2) Your experiences a sports cyclist and professional cycling coach belie mine as an amateur cyclist, non-sports scientist, non-cycling coach, non-professional. Specifically, your observations -at least as related above- are dead wrong. re: "Your strength isn't increased with power cranks or any other form of endurance cycle training". If you take a sedentary person, puth them on a cycle and have them do nothing but endurance training, their strength will be improved... every time... Likewise, you put a well-trained cyclist on a pair of PC's (or have them do massive amounts of single-leg drills) and some new muscle groups are going to be recruited (or are going to be recruited to a greater extant) and that's going to result in greater overall strength... assuming they don't lose some strength in other muscle groups in the process. (3) Regarding a test: your reasons for dismissing doing any sort of testing are pretty shakey. It's as if you are saying that there are no useful n=1 experiments. I'd imagine that much of your work as a coach utilizes experimentation of this exact kind: "let's try this... and see if it works". __________________ Mark

11-06.-2004, 04:26 AM

#18

ric_stern/RST

Community Team

Join Date: Nov 2002

Location: Newport, South Wales

Posts: 3,831

Quote:

Originally posted by IMHooker
Specifically, your observations -at least as related above- are dead wrong. re: "Your strength isn't increased with power cranks or any other form of endurance cycle training".

i've said it before and i'll say it again :-), non-trained, healthy, mass and gender matched people are on average no weaker (or stronger) than elite trained cyclists.

Quote:

If you take a sedentary person, puth them on a cycle and have them do nothing but endurance training, their strength will be improved... every time...

this simply isn't true. elite cyclists are no stronger than healthy, mass and gender matched controls. the forces involved in endurance cycling are very small such that most people can meet them.

the only case where strength might be increased via cycling is with frail, old ladies.

Quote:

Likewise, you put a well-trained cyclist on a pair of PC's (or have them do massive amounts of single-leg drills) and some new muscle groups are going to be recruited (or are going to be recruited to a greater extant)

that's likely to be the case

Quote:

and that's going to result in greater overall strength... assuming they don't lose some strength in other muscle groups in the process.

strength is clearly defined as the maximal force or tension that can be generated by a muscle or group of muscles. adding greater muscle recruitment to the mix may well increase strength, but cycling isn't strength limited (as long we're talking about endurance cycling performance, i.e., races that are > 90-secs in duration).

Quote:

(3) Regarding a test: your reasons for dismissing doing any sort of testing are pretty shakey. It's as if you are saying that there are no useful n=1 experiments. I'd imagine that much of your work as a coach utilizes experimentation of this exact kind: "let's try this... and see if it works".

sorry, i was imagining you wanted to me to prove or disprove that training with power cranks increased performance. with an n=1 you can't do this at all, as there is no control to measure against. thus we wouldn't know if you increased performance (if that's the case) due to the cranks specifically, or e.g., greater training volume in general.

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

11-06.-2004, 07:24 AM	#19
patch70 Registered User Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Melbourne Posts: 1,667	Has anyone tried RotorCranks? If I had money to burn, I would try these before PC's. (Obviously not to increase "strength" or "endurance" but perhaps to go faster...)

11-06.-2004, 07:28 AM

#20

patch70

Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2003

Location: Melbourne

Posts: 1,667

Quote:

Originally posted by IMHooker
...you put a well-trained cyclist on a pair of PC's (or have them do massive amounts of single-leg drills) and some new muscle groups are going to be recruited (or are going to be recruited to a greater extant) and that's going to result in greater overall strength... assuming they don't lose some strength in other muscle groups in the process.

Why not do several hundred chin-ups per day? Improving the "fitness" of muscles that are not useful to cycling will not help with your cycling. Thus the chin-ups would be just as useful as all those extra up-strokes.

11-06.-2004, 05:37 PM

#21

n crowley

Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2003

Location: dublin ireland

Posts: 426

Quote:

Originally posted by patch70
Has anyone tried RotorCranks? If I had money to burn, I would try these before PC's. (Obviously not to increase "strength" or "endurance" but perhaps to go faster...)

RC's work by continuously changing the effective gearing of a
53 chainwheel from a high chainring equivalent of 58.8 to a
low of 47.6 during one revolution of the pedal/crank. This is
supposed to enable you to start your main power stroke very
slightly earlier than you could normally do in addition to being
able to use the highest chainring gear value at the strongest
part of your pedal stroke. To get most from these cranks, you
would need to already have a good unweighting pedal stroke.
While the slightly earlier pedalling start may not seem much,
over an hour at a cadence of 90 it is multiplied by 10,800. Used
correctly, this could mean up to an extra 2 + minutes of pedalling
time in an hour and the time comes from reducing the idling time
spent in the dead spot area.
The disadvantages are extra friction, weight, additional servicing
and the fitting and removing.

11-06.-2004, 09:19 PM

#22

100%

Registered User

Join Date: May 2004

Location: Melbourne, Australia

Posts: 42

Quote:

You may not be ignorant, but being a coach and a sports scientist doesn't mean your immune to it!!!???? I consider ignorant someone who argues a point on OPINION only, having never tried or tested(as a good scientist would) themself. Therefor your OPINION is based purely on other peoples testimonies. Get some PC's, use them, and then you can argue with conviction!

No strength increase by cycle training? You're joking right? So I take my neighbour who sits and watches football all week and get him to ride 500km per week for a year and his legs will be no stronger than when he started?? Doubt it!

So I do a training session that hurts the next day, does that not indicate I have in some way damaged tissue or extended my respiratory system beyond what it was comfortable with? And then with porper recovery, wouldn't that given tissue or system then repair itself stronger or more able(adapt) to cope with the higher stresses I have placed it under? I'm pretty sure the whole basics of training is around this stress/adaption theory. Please correct me if I am misinformed?

"we already know, that elite compared to less elite cyclists push down more and pull up less, yet these are better cyclists. " Where do we know this from please? You have power meter data on all elite cyclists? And all elite cyclists pedal the same? lol!
Do they actually pull up with less power or just relative to the amount of power they they push down with? If the latter is correct then it would be assumed that the rest of us would still see improvements by pulling up better.

As a coach, would you tell me to push down and not worry about pulling up, contrary to every other coach I have ever spoken to?

Mark

11-06.-2004, 09:24 PM

#23

100%

Registered User

Join Date: May 2004

Location: Melbourne, Australia

Posts: 42

Quote:

Originally posted by patch70
Why not do several hundred chin-ups per day? Improving the "fitness" of muscles that are not useful to cycling will not help with your cycling. Thus the chin-ups would be just as useful as all those extra up-strokes.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh.......... you weren't joking?

The muscles that pull the pedal up are not useful in cycling?

11-06.-2004, 09:50 PM

#24

ric_stern/RST

Community Team

Join Date: Nov 2002

Location: Newport, South Wales

Posts: 3,831

Quote:

Originally posted by 100%
You may not be ignorant, but being a coach and a sports scientist doesn't mean your immune to it!!!???? I consider ignorant someone who argues a point on OPINION only, having never tried or tested(as a good scientist would) themself. Therefor your OPINION is based purely on other peoples testimonies. Get some PC's, use them, and then you can argue with conviction!

i *know* that using the cranks will be hard -- i've said this all along. my opinion is based on no ones testimonies, but on the available peer reviewed research that is available.

Quote:

No strength increase by cycle training? You're joking right?

no i'm not. endurance cycling performance requires very little force, such that most people can meet the forces required. obvious exceptions to this are completely mismatched people, frail old ladies, and people with a functional disability.

Quote:

So I take my neighbour who sits and watches football all week and get him to ride 500km per week for a year and his legs will be no stronger than when he started?? Doubt it!

getting someone to do 500 km/wk (aside from the obvious, that an untrained person wouldn't be able to manage this), would increased the persons endurance and aerobic function.

strength (which is maximal force) can only be generated at zero or close to zero velocity. cycle training has velocities much higher than this (e.g., most people pedal at > 30 revs/min) and because strength is a *maximal* measure cycle training aint going to do it.

Quote:

So I do a training session that hurts the next day, does that not indicate I have in some way damaged tissue or extended my respiratory system beyond what it was comfortable with? And then with porper recovery, wouldn't that given tissue or system then repair itself stronger or more able(adapt) to cope with the higher stresses I have placed it under? I'm pretty sure the whole basics of training is around this stress/adaption theory. Please correct me if I am misinformed?

i'm not sure what this has to do or doesn't have to do with Power Cranks?

Quote:

"we already know, that elite compared to less elite cyclists push down more and pull up less, yet these are better cyclists. " Where do we know this from please? You have power meter data on all elite cyclists? And all elite cyclists pedal the same? lol!
Do they actually pull up with less power or just relative to the amount of power they they push down with? If the latter is correct then it would be assumed that the rest of us would still see improvements by pulling up better.

in the coyle et al., 1991 study using instrumented force pedals, they pulled up less than less fit cyclists

Quote:

As a coach, would you tell me to push down and not worry about pulling up, contrary to every other coach I have ever spoken to?

Mark

as a coach and/or sport scientist i'd tell you not to worry whatsoever about how you pedal, but to worry about increasing some measure of your sustainable power output.

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

12-06.-2004, 12:05 AM	#25
spacefuzz Registered User Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 197	ric, well as an engineer and a cyclist I must say I am amazed how you dismiss some very basic scientific principles. Even if pc's dont increase power they definatly improve the efficiency of your pedal stroke which would let you save energy and apply more power where its needed most on the downstroke. And i have heard from many coaches that how you pedal does matter. where did you get your coaching liscence?

12-06.-2004, 12:19 AM

#26

ric_stern/RST

Community Team

Join Date: Nov 2002

Location: Newport, South Wales

Posts: 3,831

Quote:

Originally posted by spacefuzz
ric,
well as an engineer and a cyclist I must say I am amazed how you dismiss some very basic scientific principles. Even if pc's dont increase power they definatly improve the efficiency of your pedal stroke which would let you save energy and apply more power where its needed most on the downstroke. And i have heard from many coaches that how you pedal does matter. where did you get your coaching liscence?

i have NOT dismissed any basic or otherwise scientific principles. please point me to the principles i have dismissed?

if you bother to look on e.g., pub-med, you'll see that i have asserted the underlying principles that other researchers have found.

they do not "definitely" increase your efficiency.

they definitely do not allow you to apply more peak torque around 3 o'oclock, they do the opposite (at least according to the people who use them).

how you pedal and it's importance, is a huge myth of cycling folklore.

what has where i obtained my coaching licence got to do with anything?

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

12-06.-2004, 06:12 PM

#27

n crowley

Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2003

Location: dublin ireland

Posts: 426

Quote:

Originally posted by ricstern
i have NOT dismissed any basic or otherwise scientific principles. please point me to the principles i have dismissed?

if you bother to look on e.g., pub-med, you'll see that i have asserted the underlying principles that other researchers have found.

they do not "definitely" increase your efficiency.

they definitely do not allow you to apply more peak torque around 3 o'oclock, they do the opposite (at least according to the people who use them).

how you pedal and it's importance, is a huge myth of cycling folklore.

what has where i obtained my coaching licence got to do with anything?

ric

If a qualified cycling coach does not realize that perfecting the
technique of unweighting the idling pedal can increase the pedal
power application torque, it would explain how the much more
complicated biomechanics of Anquetil's linear pedalling style is
beyond their comprehension. As you stated in an earlier post
above, a small force is used to power the pedals, so if you can
increase that force by the full weight of the leg at little or no
extra energy cost than that of raising the leg when walking or
running, it is bound to have a positive advantage on overall
performance as this is occurring over 10,000 times per hour.

13-06.-2004, 07:00 PM

#28

100%

Registered User

Join Date: May 2004

Location: Melbourne, Australia

Posts: 42

Quote:

Originally posted by ricstern
i *know* that using the cranks will be hard -- i've said this all along. my opinion is based on no ones testimonies, but on the available peer reviewed research that is available.

no i'm not. endurance cycling performance requires very little force, such that most people can meet the forces required. obvious exceptions to this are completely mismatched people, frail old ladies, and people with a functional disability.

getting someone to do 500 km/wk (aside from the obvious, that an untrained person wouldn't be able to manage this), would increased the persons endurance and aerobic function.

strength (which is maximal force) can only be generated at zero or close to zero velocity. cycle training has velocities much higher than this (e.g., most people pedal at > 30 revs/min) and because strength is a *maximal* measure cycle training aint going to do it.

i'm not sure what this has to do or doesn't have to do with Power Cranks?

in the coyle et al., 1991 study using instrumented force pedals, they pulled up less than less fit cyclists

as a coach and/or sport scientist i'd tell you not to worry whatsoever about how you pedal, but to worry about increasing some measure of your sustainable power output.

ric

Damn the lack of smilies on this forum

Where's the one with a guy banging his head against a wall

"peer reviewed research" ah yes, research. If we believed all the research around we would all be dead because everything causes cancer doesn't it! You can do research to prove any point you want it to. As I said, get some PC's YOURSELF, and then comment with conviction.

"strength (which is maximal force) can only be generated at zero or close to zero velocity. cycle training has velocities much higher than this (e.g., most people pedal at > 30 revs/min) and because strength is a *maximal* measure cycle training aint going to do it."
I think 'maximal force' is POWER and strength is power/time?

The comment has something to do with PC's because you indicated that something that hurts doesn't necesserily mean it will improve your cycling!

"as a coach and/or sport scientist i'd tell you not to worry whatsoever about how you pedal, but to worry about increasing some measure of your sustainable power output."
Well lets all throw away our clipless pedals, pulling up isn't worth worrying about!!!
If that is the advice you would give then I'm sure I'm not alone here in saying that you would never be my coach!

__________________
When I started steel sucked! Then Alloy rocked! Then Alloy sucked! Then carbon rocked! Then carbon sucked! Then Steel rocked! now i ride carbon????

i'm here coz i ride...

14-06.-2004, 01:46 AM

#29

ric_stern/RST

Community Team

Join Date: Nov 2002

Location: Newport, South Wales

Posts: 3,831

Quote:

Originally posted by 100%
"peer reviewed research" ah yes, research. If we believed all the research around we would all be dead because everything causes cancer doesn't it! You can do research to prove any point you want it to. As I said, get some PC's YOURSELF, and then comment with conviction.

right...

as i've repeatedly said, i'm not saying that pedalling with PCs won't be difficult, in fact i've said that it's likely to be very difficult. however, that doesn't mean that it would necessarily be good for you.

Quote:

"strength (which is maximal force) can only be generated at zero or close to zero velocity. cycle training has velocities much higher than this (e.g., most people pedal at > 30 revs/min) and because strength is a *maximal* measure cycle training aint going to do it."
I think 'maximal force' is POWER and strength is power/time?

no, the definitions i gave are correct. strength is maximal force. power has several expressions that be used, notably, as related to cycling these are; workdone/time, angular velocity * torque, and the sum of all the forces that must be overcome to move you and the bike at a given velocity (under given conditions).

Quote:

The comment has something to do with PC's because you indicated that something that hurts doesn't necesserily mean it will improve your cycling!

lots of things hurt. hardly any of them improve cycling. trying hitting your legs very hard with a brick. hurts like hell, doesn't improve your cycling one iota.

Quote:

"as a coach and/or sport scientist i'd tell you not to worry whatsoever about how you pedal, but to worry about increasing some measure of your sustainable power output."
Well lets all throw away our clipless pedals, pulling up isn't worth worrying about!!!
If that is the advice you would give then I'm sure I'm not alone here in saying that you would never be my coach!

as i've previously mentioned, research that has specifically looked at this has found that elite cyclists compared to less elite cyclists push down more on the downstroke and pull up less. the less elite cyclists pulled up more, which went into generating forward movement.

however, by generating higher peak forces around 3 o'clock more power was produced, which led the elite cyclists to go faster/produce higher average powers. see for e.g., http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...st_uids=1997818

ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

14-06.-2004, 07:08 PM

#30

100%

Registered User

Join Date: May 2004

Location: Melbourne, Australia

Posts: 42

Quote:

Originally posted by ricstern
as i've previously mentioned, research that has specifically looked at this has found that elite cyclists compared to less elite cyclists push down more on the downstroke and pull up less. the less elite cyclists pulled up more, which went into generating forward movement.

however, by generating higher peak forces around 3 o'clock more power was produced, which led the elite cyclists to go faster/produce higher average powers. see for e.g., http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...st_uids=1997818

ric

OK well I'm done urguing with a brick wall! I'II just ride my PC's and actually see the improvements FOR MYSELF!

But finally, I accept that your research shows your point, BUT. The research is from 1991 and it should be viewed as outdated by todays standards. Tell me what the average speed of the tour de France was in '91 compared to the last few years? What was the time the Australian team won the teams pursuit (world record) at the Olympics in (I think) '94 compared to the current world record? It is fair to say that what was then, isn't necessarily so now, that was 13years ago, there have been MAJOR steps forward and improvements in many facets of cycling. Back then many things were believed to be true, biopace was good, tt add on's such as aerobars were a waste of time, water was the best fluid, steel was the best material for a bike, sis down tube shifters were good, there was NO better training than big miles.........................................anyone who was a rider back then wish to add to the list

Research does not remain valid indefinitely!!!

ASK these guys about PC's-
Aerts, Mario - UCI ranked 42nd Jan 2003
Andreu, Frankie - retired
Bettini, Paolo - UCI ranked 3rd Jan 2003
Clinger, David - Prime Alliance
Evans, Cadel - UCI ranked 31st Jan 2003
Herriott, Todd - 2002 Univest Grand Prix winner
Garzelli, Stephano - UCI ranked 128th Jan 2003
Monahan, Kevin - 2002 US pro criterium champion
Museeuw, Johan - UCI ranked 16th Jan 2003 (retired)
Nardello, Danielle - UCI ranked 60th Jan 2003
Ventura, Robbie - 2002 2nd US Pro criterium championship
Whittingham, Sam - Set HPV world speed record in 2001 of over 80 mph for the 200m, over 79 mph for the kilometer, and over 78 mph for the mile. Increased again in 2002 to 81 mph.

Amey, Paul
Bennett, Craig
Bentley, Lisa
Bonness, Joe
Bonney, James
Brown, Cameron
DeBoom, Tony
Fuhr, Heather
Hawker, Chad
Kotland, Peter
Knarvak, Martin
Larsen, Steve
Lawn, Joanna
Lindley, Siri
Lindquist, Barb
Jones, Michellie
Marshall, Tara-Lee
Modave, Francois
McCormack, Chris
Ospaly, Filipe
Reback, Laura
Savege, Jill
Simpson, Bianca
Strangmuller, Jan
Taormina, Sheila - Olympic Triathlete
Vabrousek, Petr
Wydoff, Cam
Zinkand, Beth

That's a big who's who in cycling and triathlon!

I just saw on the PC's website that they have an unconditional money back gtee. Time to put your money where your mouth is!

__________________
When I started steel sucked! Then Alloy rocked! Then Alloy sucked! Then carbon rocked! Then carbon sucked! Then Steel rocked! now i ride carbon????

i'm here coz i ride...

Last edited by 100% : 14-06.-2004 at 07:22 PM.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode