PowerCranks Study

Phil Holman said:

This from Frank Day's recent Newsletter...

# The first criticisms I heard about the PC's came from those who said "well, if they are so good,
# why aren't the top cyclists using them?" Well, that argument became easy to rebut in the last year
# or so. But, the other criticism has been that "there has been no study proving the worth of the
# cranks and substantiating the claims." Well, I am glad to report that drought is about to end. I
# have been informed (and have seen the galleys) that the first study of training effectiveness in
# trained cyclists is to be published in November. I must say, based upon the study design, I would
# not have predicted the magnitude of the benefits they found. But, I shouldn't say more until it is
# published. I will, of course, put a link to the study once it is available.

Quoted message said:

I'll look forward to reading the publishing and debating this a little more.

This sounds more like a book promotion than a report on the cranks. Barkers at circus sideshows show
more than this lead-on. How can you repeat such jive? By the way, remind me of the principal behind
PC's. Are these the cranks that do not come around by themselves and require pulling up to make them
remain synchronous (180 degrees apart)?

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

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

Quoted message said:

Phil Holman said:

This from Frank Day's recent Newsletter...

# The first criticisms I heard about the PC's came from those who said "well, if they are so good,
# why aren't the top cyclists using them?" Well, that argument became easy to rebut in the last
# year or so. But, the other criticism has been that "there has been no study proving the worth of
# the cranks and substantiating the claims." Well, I am glad to report that drought is about to
# end. I have been informed (and have seen the galleys) that the first study of training
# effectiveness in trained cyclists is to be published in November. I must say, based upon the
# study design, I would not have predicted the magnitude of the benefits they found. But, I
# shouldn't say more until it is published. I will, of course, put a link to the study once it is
# available.

Quoted message said:

I'll look forward to reading the publishing and debating this a little more.

This sounds more like a book promotion than a report on the cranks. Barkers at circus sideshows
show more than this lead-on. How can you repeat such jive? By the way, remind me of the principal
behind PC's. Are these the cranks that do not come around by themselves and require pulling up to
make them remain synchronous (180 degrees apart)?

Yes, that's correct Jobst. Reading between the lines of the newsletter, it looks like the study will
reveal that training with the cranks will increase power output by 'x' amount. This might be a
little more newsworthy than the umpteenth thread on shimmy but that's just my opinion. We'll just
have to wait and see.

Phil Holman

In article said:

Phil Holman said:

This from Frank Day's recent Newsletter...

# The first criticisms I heard about the PC's came from those who said "well, if they are so good,
# why aren't the top cyclists using them?" Well, that argument became easy to rebut in the last
# year or so. But, the other criticism has been that "there has been no study proving the worth of
# the cranks and substantiating the claims." Well, I am glad to report that drought is about to
# end. I have been informed (and have seen the galleys) that the first study of training
# effectiveness in trained cyclists is to be published in November. I must say, based upon the
# study design, I would not have predicted the magnitude of the benefits they found. But, I
# shouldn't say more until it is published. I will, of course, put a link to the study once it is
# available.

Quoted message said:

I'll look forward to reading the publishing and debating this a little more.

This sounds more like a book promotion than a report on the cranks. Barkers at circus sideshows
show more than this lead-on. How can you repeat such jive? By the way, remind me of the principal
behind PC's. Are these the cranks that do not come around by themselves and require pulling up to
make them remain synchronous (180 degrees apart)?

Powercranks are the ones that freewheel independently, so yes, you have to pull up to keep them
spinning. Rotorcranks are the Biopace-y ones that are geared together but in such a way that the
cranks move out of phase as the cranks swing through TDC and BDC.

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email hidden] sfu.ca~rcousineOpen ↗ President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club

Phil Holman said:

Quoted message said:

This sounds more like a book promotion than a report on the cranks. Barkers at circus sideshows
show more than this lead-on. How can you repeat such jive? By the way, remind me of the principal
behind PC's. Are these the cranks that do not come around by themselves and require pulling up to
make them remain synchronous (180 degrees apart)?

Quoted message said:

Yes, that's correct Jobst. Reading between the lines of the newsletter, it looks like the study
will reveal that training with the cranks will increase power output by 'x' amount. This might be
a little more newsworthy than the umpteenth thread on shimmy but that's just my opinion. We'll
just have to wait and see.

There is no doubt that adding the effect of lifting (actually pulling back, lifting and pushing
forward over the top will impart more power to cranks, however, it will not produce more power from
the rider for a given aerobic level. Quite to the contrary. Engaging more muscles in propelling the
bicycle burdens the heart and lungs with the overhead of more muscles rather than using the
principal ones that are naturally used. If this were not so, foot plus hand cranks would produce a
greater speed in TT's, flat and hill climbs, but they don't.

Anyone who has not trained with these cranks cannot ride with them, the requirement to keep positive
forward torque on both cranks throughout rotation is difficult to accomplish. I'm sure that Lance
Armstrong could not ride rollers with these at the bicycle show, something no bicycle racer I saw at
InterBike 2002 do. If these cranks did what they claim to do, we wouldn't see riders dominate in
races against PowerCrank devotees.

Let's not overlook that with conventional cranks, the feet an legs are balanced and that it take no
effort to rotate the cranks forward, clipped in and with non chain. With Power Cranks, this takes
considerable effort, the feet not balancing each other.

The limit of climbing hills or flat TT depends on aerobic capacity. That is what good bicycle racers
have that others don't.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

[email hidden] wrote in message

Quoted message said:

There is no doubt that adding the effect of lifting (actually pulling back, lifting and pushing
forward over the top will impart more power to cranks, however, it will not produce more power
from the rider for a given aerobic level. Quite to the contrary. Engaging more muscles in
propelling the bicycle burdens the heart and lungs with the overhead of more muscles rather than
using the principal ones that are naturally used. If this were not so, foot plus hand cranks would
produce a greater speed in TT's, flat and hill climbs, but they don't.

Rowers combine arm and leg power to improve performance and it does not burden their heart and
lungs. If cyclists had the correct linear pedaling technique, they too could combine the pushing
and pulling on fixed normal bars for additional pedal power without overloading their heart and
lungs. The most efficient pedaling is the technique that enables you to apply very effective power
to the pedal from 11 to 5 'clock regardless of what your cadence is because this enables you to
use a higher gear for the same effort of a rider who does not have this technique. The pulling up
is done by the arm not the leg. The explanation for the ineffectiveness of Powercranks is that the
pulling power of the leg is only effecive at a low cadence or when out of the saddle and even then
can only be used for short periods.

Quoted message said:

Let's not overlook that with conventional cranks, the feet an legs are balanced and that it take
no effort to rotate the cranks forward, clipped in and with non chain. With Power Cranks, this
takes considerable effort, the feet not balancing each other.

If you were pedaling for most benefit, the feet would not be balanced as you should be unweighting
the idling pedal as soon as you stop applying the power, making the most out of the assistance of
gravity. In that one instance Powercranks could prove to you the error of your ways.

Quoted message said:

The limit of climbing hills or flat TT depends on aerobic capacity. That is what good bicycle
racers have that others don't.

True but knowing how to get the most out of your pedals and cranks can help you to make the most of
your aerobic capacity.

Quoted message said:

Anyone who has not trained with these cranks cannot ride with them, the requirement to keep
positive forward torque on both cranks throughout rotation is difficult to accomplish.

That's the point. These cranks are not marketed as being faster than normal cranks. They are
marketed as a training tool, so that when a rider who uses them a lot rides on a bike with normal
cranks, he/she will be more powerful. I'm not sure I believe that though.

JT
*******************************************
NB: reply-to address is munged

Visit jt10000.comjt10000.comOpen ↗
*******************************************

RE/

Quoted message said:

Engaging more muscles in propelling the bicycle burdens the heart and lungs with the overhead of
more muscles rather than using the principal ones that are naturally used.

Does that supply me with a rationale to not learn how to spin?
--
PeteCresswell

RE/

Quoted message said:

Rowers combine arm and leg power to improve performance and it does not burden their heart
and lungs.

I'm not much of a rower - but I did belong to one of the local barge clubs for a couple years and
have *lots* of hours on a Concept II rowing ergometer.

I would disagree with the idea that rowing uses the arms for anything but connectors. For me, at
least, rowing is a series of dead lifts. Virtually no arm effort is involved besides hanging on to
the oars hard enough to transfer power.
--
PeteCresswell

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (n

crowley) said:

Rowers combine arm and leg power to improve performance and it does not burden their heart and
lungs.

Yes it does. Rowers are far less efficient aerobically than cyclists, and cannot keep up competitive
efforts for an hour or more at a time, as can cyclists. It's very simple: more muscles in use
increases the burden on the cardiovascular system.

Quoted message said:

If cyclists had the correct linear pedaling technique, they too could combine the pushing and
pulling on fixed normal bars for additional pedal power without overloading their heart and
lungs. The most efficient pedaling is the technique that enables you to apply very effective
power to the pedal from 11 to 5 'clock regardless of what your cadence is because this enables
you to use a higher gear for the same effort of a rider who does not have this technique. The
pulling up is done by the arm not the leg.

You must have an interesting position on the bike, since you seem to be pedaling with your hands on
your ankles so that you can pull your feet up.

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

Quoted message said:

Phil Holman said:

Quoted message said:

This sounds more like a book promotion than a report on the cranks. Barkers at circus sideshows
show more than this lead-on. How can you repeat such jive? By the way, remind me of the
principal behind PC's. Are these the cranks that do not come around by themselves and require
pulling up to make them remain synchronous (180 degrees apart)?

Quoted message said:

Yes, that's correct Jobst. Reading between the lines of the newsletter, it looks like the
study will reveal that training with the cranks will increase power output by 'x' amount. This
might be

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

little more newsworthy than the umpteenth thread on shimmy but that's just my opinion. We'll
just have to wait and see.

There is no doubt that adding the effect of lifting (actually pulling back, lifting and pushing
forward over the top will impart more power to cranks, however, it will not produce more power
from the rider for a given aerobic level.

We've gone over this before. The athletes who typically display the highest V02 max are those who
utilize the most muscle mass (e.g. X-Country Skiers).

Quoted message said:

Quite to the contrary. Engaging more muscles in propelling the bicycle burdens the heart and lungs
with the overhead of more muscles rather than using the principal ones that are naturally used. If
this were not so, foot plus hand cranks would produce a greater speed in TT's, flat and hill
climbs, but they don't.

It is my understanding that the lungs are not the constraint given their overcapacity in normal
athletes. If they were, we would see venous blood desaturation in all athletes at and above their
aerobic limit. The constraint is not just pumping capacity of the heart either. There is separation
in performance between athletes with identical cardiac output. There are plenty of sports physiology
references out there raining knowledge soup. Wearing one's soup bowl as a rain bonnet will do
nothing but perpetuate an empty place holder for knowledge. As for hand and foot cranking, I've seen
a number of these devices and it's probably the design constraints and unwieldy operation of such
contraptions outweighing any power gains. I've also seen studies demonstrating the opposite for
durations exceeding just anaerobic considerations.

Quoted message said:

Anyone who has not trained with these cranks cannot ride with them, the requirement to keep
positive forward torque on both cranks throughout rotation is difficult to accomplish. I'm sure
that Lance Armstrong could not ride rollers with these at the bicycle show, something no bicycle
racer I saw at InterBike 2002 do. If these cranks did what they claim to do, we wouldn't see
riders dominate in races against PowerCrank devotees.

I gained 1 mph in TT speed. This will not necessarily make one a winner of anything. The highest
ranked cyclist using them is Paolo Bettini - UCI ranked 3rd in Jan 2003.

Quoted message said:

Let's not overlook that with conventional cranks, the feet an legs are balanced and that it take
no effort to rotate the cranks forward, clipped in and with non chain. With Power Cranks, this
takes considerable effort, the feet not balancing each other. The limit of climbing hills or flat
TT depends on aerobic capacity. That is what good bicycle racers have that others don't.

I totally agree and the limiting factor in aerobic capacity is the ability of the muscles to utilize
oxygen. The report should reveal what aerobic gains were made.

Phil Holman

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (n

crowley) said:

Rowers combine arm and leg power to improve performance and it does not burden their heart and
lungs.

Yes it does. Rowers are far less efficient aerobically than cyclists, and cannot keep up
competitive efforts for an hour or more at a time, as can cyclists. It's very simple: more muscles
in use increases the burden on the cardiovascular system.

Quite true in the given context but if we were to wrap ourselves around the efficiency axle, we
would all be pedaling around at 60 rpm. IMO there is nothing about improving efficiency with PC
training. The expectation is that from the extra energy used in pulling up, some of it will manifest
itself as useful work. The theory of constraints says that aerobic power output is not just limited
by heart and lung capacity.

Phil Holman

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tim McNamara
[B]In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] (n

crowley) said:

Rowers combine arm and leg power to improve performance and it does not burden their heart and
lungs.

n crowley said:

No but I have an interesting pedaling technique which almost reverses the rowing technique,
instead of the arms applying the power to the oars, the feet apply the power to the pedals while
making maximum use of arm pulling up power to increase that pedal power whenever the necessity for
this extra power arises.

That just sounds like normal climbing techniques. Nothing that can be sustained over a longer
period of time.

--
Perre

You have to be smarter than a robot to reply.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Per ElmsäTer

Bn crowley said:

No but I have an interesting pedaling technique which almost reverses the rowing technique,
instead of the arms applying the power to the oars, the feet apply the power to the pedals while
making maximum use of arm pulling up power to increase that pedal power whenever the necessity for
this extra power arises.

n crowley said:

Originally posted by Per ElmsäTer n crowley said:

No but I have an interesting pedaling technique which almost reverses the rowing technique,
instead of the arms applying the power to the oars, the feet apply the power to the pedals while
making maximum use of arm pulling up power to increase that pedal power whenever the necessity
for this extra power arises.

That just sounds like normal climbing techniques. Nothing that can be sustained over a longer
period of time.
==============================================

Try using the normal climbing technique when riding a track pursuit at maximum power application
and in an aerodynamic position.

Well that makes it more like a sprint position. Neither a sprint nor a track pursuit can be
sustained over a longer period of time. So tell us instead how you accomplish this.

--
Perre

You have to be smarter than a robot to reply.

N? Crowley said:

No but I have an interesting pedaling technique which almost reverses the rowing technique,
instead of the arms applying the power to the oars, the feet apply the power to the pedals while
making maximum use of arm pulling up power to increase that pedal power whenever the necessity for
this extra power arises.

That's interesting. Well trained bicycle racers do not pull up on the bars at all. The bars are used
in sprinting or steep climbing while standing in order to counter the torque of pulling up on the
rear pedal. This is done by pushing down with one hand and pulling up with the other, the push being
grater than the pull. If this were not down the rider would fall off the bicycle. This is not work
because the arms do not articulate while providing this counter force. However, for the longer term,
a gear is selected that does not require pulling up on pedals. That's the reason for gears.

I think you should ride some more and observe what occurs.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

N? Crowley said:

Quoted message said:

There is no doubt that adding the effect of lifting (actually pulling back, lifting and pushing
forward over the top will impart more power to cranks, however, it will not produce more power
from the rider for a given aerobic level. Quite to the contrary. Engaging more muscles in
propelling the bicycle burdens the heart and lungs with the overhead of more muscles rather than
using the principal ones that are naturally used. If this were not so, foot plus hand cranks
would produce a greater speed in TT's, flat and hill climbs, but they don't.

Quoted message said:

Rowers combine arm and leg power to improve performance and it does not burden their heart
and lungs.

I think you'll find that rowers row with their legs, their hands and arms functioning much like the
foot and ankle of the bicyclist at the ends of a pedal strokes where inconsequential power is
transmitted.

Quoted message said:

If cyclists had the correct linear pedaling technique, they too could combine the pushing and
pulling on fixed normal bars for additional pedal power without overloading their heart and lungs.

The concept of linear pedal mechanisms and the like is a discredited belief of people who do not
recognize reality. Bicycle riding has been scrutinized for more than a century and nothing new and
useful has come up since the beginning of the chain driven bicycle.

Quoted message said:

The most efficient pedaling is the technique that enables you to apply very effective power to the
pedal from 11 to 5 'clock regardless of what your cadence is because this enables you to use a
higher gear for the same effort of a rider who does not have this technique. The pulling up is
done by the arm not the leg.

I think you are mistaken. Go row a bit and observe what occurs. The bicyclist ha no lack of
transmitting power but rather a limited aerobic capacity, and nothing will get past that. you seem
to believe that power can be extracted from muscles without them demanding oxygen and glycogen. I
think you ignore that the first measurement of interest by a bicycling team is lung capacity, not
muscles or pedaling style.

Quoted message said:

The explanation for the ineffectiveness of PowerCranks is that the pulling power of the leg is
only effecive at a low cadence or when out of the saddle and even then can only be used for short
periods.

Not at all. The problem is that lifting the leg against gravity is work even without adding any
torque. On normal cranks the legs are balanced and require no effort to go around, up or down.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Let's not overlook that with conventional cranks, the feet an legs are balanced and that it take
no effort to rotate the cranks forward, clipped in and with non chain. With Power Cranks, this
takes considerable effort, the feet not balancing each other.

Quoted message said:

If you were pedaling for most benefit, the feet would not be balanced as you should be unweighting
the idling pedal as soon as you stop applying the power, making the most out of the assistance of
gravity. In that one instance PowerCranks could prove to you the error of your ways.

Why "should" I be unweighting the "idling" pedal? That makes unnecessary work that I can do without.
This work is better done with the descending leg. Invoking other muscles to do this is inefficient.
That the downward pushing muscles have the ability to do this is amply demonstrated and that there
is reserve is demonstrated in sprints that use up the aerobic capacity. You are suggesting that
there is an inefficiency in the principal muscles we use to propel ourselves and engaging other
unnatural muscles improves power generation. I don't believe a word of it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The limit of climbing hills or flat TT depends on aerobic capacity. That is what good bicycle
racers have that others don't.

Quoted message said:

True but knowing how to get the most out of your pedals and cranks can help you to make the most
of your aerobic capacity.

You think you can fool the muscles into doing free work.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

Pete Cresswell said:

Quoted message said:

Engaging more muscles in propelling the bicycle burdens the heart and lungs with the overhead of
more muscles rather than using the principal ones that are naturally used.

Quoted message said:

Does that supply me with a rationale to not learn how to spin?

You don't need to do anything but push down on pedals to spin. Fortunately, rigidly connected cranks
constrain the feet to move in circles and do so in a balanced manner. All the ride needs to do is
inject some energy into that rotation at a suitable rate. Let's not get pedaling rate confused with
"round pedaling", a subject similar to the study of ankling of the past.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

Phil Holman' may have said:

Reading between the lines of the newsletter, it looks like the study will reveal that training with
the cranks will increase power output by 'x' amount.

Any bets that the gadget merely achieves what can be had by a clipless-pedal user (or toeclip user,
for that matter) with proper training *without* the freewheeling crank and its attendant
disadvantages?

I have little doubt that high-level professional racers already employ the technique that this
gadget's makers claim can only be learned through the use of their device. They seem to think
there's magic in their alleged "positive feedback", but what I see is *negative* feedback for a
non-pull return stroke, and I'm sure there are ways to learn to pull without their widgetry.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail. Yes, I have a killfile. If I
don't respond to something, it's also possible that I'm busy.