pealling push up push down

Fday

Phooey. Many people find my 40% claim reasonable, most of them are customers. A 4% improvement would be hard to separate from training effect. Anyhow, one independent controlled study was published by Luttrell. He managed to show a 10% improvement in cycling efficiency in trained cyclists (not elite cyclists) for a full hour after only 6 weeks of PC training. check it out: http://nsca.allenpress.com/nscaonline/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1519%2F1533-4287(2003)017%3C0785:EOSTUP%3E2.0.CO%3B2

ric_stern/RST

Frank, I'll write this in simple terms for you to understand: a 40% increase in power output for a typical cyclist - as defined by you in 6 to 9 months - is extraordinarily unlikely. The magnitude of such improvement is so large that it would take that typical cyclist (a category 2 or 3 racer) to such a high level that (i.e., first few in the World Senior Elite TT Championship) that these riders would stick out like a sore thumb. They'd be obvious improvements. Unknowns would be placing in the Worlds, the whole order of cycling would be changed. The UCI would be falling over themselves to ban your cranks. Everyone would have to use them.

So, SHOW ME THESE TYPICAL CYCLISTS (I.E., CAT 2 OR 3 RACERS) THAT HAVE IMPROVED THIS 40% (AND SUDDENLY FOUND THEMSELF RACING FOR A PRO TEAM OR WHATEVER) AND PLACING AT A VERY HIGH SENIOR WORLD LEVEL. Without such proof you're writing absolute drivel, that as was previously mentioned is "snake oil". Either put up or shut up.

Ric

__________________
http://www.cyclecoach.com

n crowley

Call it what your like, pulling or pushing, the ankling rider (a more extreme version of the circular style) attempts to apply effective force to the cranks through the dead spot and upward stroke areas. Of course effective crank power is reduced on the downward stroke with cadence increase, this is because your power application time is reduced but as I stated above this time reduction has an even more dramatic effect on the ankler or powercranker as he will rapidly lose the ability to apply power in the additional areas. At a cadence of 90, a stomper will only have to make 3 adjustments to his power application muscles per second but the ankler or PC'er will have to make 12 and he ends up applying effective crank power in the downward stroke only and because he is still trying to concentrate on the additional areas, his downstroke will be weaker than that of the stomper. That is why stomping is more effective than circular pedalling when the need for power is really turned on.
If there is a 40 % increase in power, this power must come from the cranks, so how is it produced and in what area of the pedal stroke is it applied ?
Andrew Bradley has an animinated simulation of his ankling style at his site.

n crowley

Sorry about the spelling of animated above.

Fday

I think you have a very poor understanding of what is going on. First, after about 2 years old the pedaling motion requires no concentration on the part of the doer, regardless of how many "adjustments" you think they have to make or not make. It is similar to walking, running, typing, or playing the piano. Once learned, the doer doesn't have to think at all about the control of the muscles to do the activity. One can concentrate on it if one is trying to change something (for instance actors can walk with a convincing limp when they think about it) but most of the time we do not think about it and the activity is done without thinking about it.

Second, you don't seem to understand what is happening on the upstroke, where everyone is doing substantial work to drive the bicycle even though they are not putting any forward force (many are putting negative force onthe pedals there) on the pedals. The reason is they are adding potenial energy to the leg during this portion of the stroke which is recovered to drive the bicycle during "the stomping" portion of the stroke. So all the forces from this "stomping portion" are not coming from the "stomping" muscles. The only difference between PC'er, "circular" pedaler, or masher, is where the energy comes from to put the potential energy into the upward moving leg. The PC'er will get it entirely from the muscles in that leg, while those other, who do not unweight completely, will only get a portion of that energy from the muscles of the leg and the rest from diverting energy from the "stomping" pedal. The amount of energy that is diverted will depend upon how much the rider is unweighting the pedal.

All the energy to drive the bicycle, including my 40% increases, come from the engine although they must of course go through the cranks, but they do not come "from the cranks". They are passive. All the energy comes from the rider. It only depends upon how big the engine is and how efficiently that energy is applied to the cranks to get through to the wheels. power at the wheel can be increased by both increasing the size of the engine and increasing the efficiency of the transmission. That is where the main benefit of the PC's come from, increasing the efficiency of this transmission.

Frank

SolarEnergy

I don't disagree. I am trying ankling more these days, and find it not very productive at higher power.

I video taped my pedaling. Even when I don't want to ankle, I end up ankling a bit, and I think this is enough. When I volontary try to involve calve muscles in a more dynamic way, as opposed to static way, I ankle more, but that feels strange. I am not very confortable so far doing this.

n crowley

Let's say a rider or myself unweights correctly as I always do, where is this 40 % increase going to come from. Of course the power must be generated by the rider but what difference do I have to make in my power generating technique to gain this 40 % increase. Has anyone researched the % gain in power that comes from total unweighting?

Fday

If you already unweight correctly it is unlikely you will see a 40% increase, or any increase, from using my product. How is it you know you already unweight correctly?

RapDaddyo

Stepping back from Frank's product for the moment, the underlying theory seems to be that cyclists develop pedaling mechanics that are sub-optimal for maximum sustainable power and that, with training and adaptation (e.g., with a device that forces one to pedal differently) one can get closer to the optimal pedaling mechanics and increase their sustainable power significantly. If this is true, wouldn't biomechanics scientists all over the planet be rushing to set up a proper test to confirm this theory? I don't know much about force instrumented pedal technology, but is it not possible to measure the force being applied to each crank independently throughout the pedal stroke? Wouldn't you set up two groups and run tests at their FT power before/after different durations of adaptation? Wouldn't such a test, conducted properly, be big news in both the scientific and cycling communities and put the scientist on the map? So, the fact that such a study has not been published suggests to me that either (1) the technology doesn't exist to properly measure crank force precisely and independently or (2) the scientists don't believe in the underlying theory.

n crowley

So the result of all this is that the stomper who can totally unweight will produce more power than a POWERCRANKER. Q.E.D.

n crowley

I asked this question earlier, if everything was possible in pedalling what would you expect from a technique before it could be called perfection ?
If you cannot dream of the perfect pedalling style, how can you ever hope to find it. What would your answer be ?
R Hallett in an article in Cycling Weekly on "The Quest For Perfect Pedalling" stated " on the face of it pedalling in circles should be easy to perfect ". Like all other experts who tried before him, with that statement and objective he fell at the first fence.

whoawhoa

How do you even know that there is a "perfect" pedaling technique?

RapDaddyo

I don't think we need to go that far. Wouldn't it warrant a scientific study if pedaling mechanics could be improved sufficiently to attain a "significant" increase in sustainable power? I would define significant as something in the vicinity of 5% or greater. I, for one, would attempt to improve my pedaling mechanics for a 5% increase in FT. But, I wouldn't attempt such a change in mechanics merely on the basis of a "money back for any reason" proposal. I would need to be persuaded that there was (1) a biomechanical scientific logic behind the claim of improvement and (2) a sound, scientific study supporting such improvement in a majority of study subjects.

Fday

(1) is wrong, the technology does exist but I have been told it is hard to keep working.

(2) is correct as several "esteemed" researchers have declared PC's to be total hype and it not possible to improve pedaling dynamics (since Coyle has already "prooved" mahsing is the optimum technique) and have also declared the one study (so far) that does show a PC positive effect to be laughable and not worthy of repeating. I have offered some of these researchers (some of whom are prominent here) a free pair for their own evaluation/study and they seen to think it beneath them to even consider the possibility these might work at all, let alone work to the degree I have claimed. Anyhow, several studies are underway now. The truth will be known.