Data (was PowerCranks Study)

HOLE MAN,

Why would a person who wants to find out whether or not POWER CRANKS are better than regular cranks
introduce the highly variable noise that this study does?

I could just as easily conclude from this data set that the reason why it showed a 2% increase in
"gross effiency" is because the subjects tested simply had an additional 6 weeks worth of training
under their belt. In no way, shape, or form, could one conclude that the extra 2% gain was due
solely to the use of Power Cranks. In fact, the subjects claimed 2% gain could have just as easily
have come from a 3-4% increase in fitness output coupled to a decrease of 1-2% (caused by the Power
Cranks), thereby resulting in a 2% net gain.

Also, no reputable scientist claims confidance in a study with an "n" number of only 6 subjects.

In addition, the University of Kansas and Miami University are both party schools and any
"scientific study" out of these overglorified frat houses probably aren't going to be appearing in
Nature anytime soon.

It was a nice infomercial though. One question: do Power Cranks come with

Take care,

Racer X

Phil Holman said:

Here is a condensed preview of the numbers from the PC testing. The study was conducted by Mark D.
Luttrell, Dept of Health, Sport and Exercise Science, University of Kansas and Jeffrey A.
Pottteiger, Dept of Physical Education, Health and Sports Studies, Miami University.

The effects of 6 weeks of training with PCs was examined for 6 cyclists (+6 with regular
cranks) to determine changes in V02 max, AT, HR, V0, and RER during a 1 hour submaximal ride
(~69% V02 max).

Here are the numbers for Heartrate (HR) and Gross Efficiency (GE) before and after training.

Time (minutes)

PC Group 15 30 45 60

HR Pre 154 155 156 157

Post 141 140 141 141

GE (%)Pre 21.5 21.3 21.6 21.5

Post 23.1 23.0 23.6 23.9

Control Group

HR Pre 166 165 166 163

Post 159 159 159 160

GE (%) Pre 21.3 20.8 20.8 21.2

Post 21.8 21.5 21.3 21.0

Significant is the 2% increase in Gross Efficiency of the PC group.

Phil Holman

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

Quoted message said:

In addition, the University of Kansas and Miami University are both party schools and any
"scientific study" out of these overglorified frat houses probably aren't going to be appearing in
Nature anytime soon.

I'm confident that people in southwestern Ohio laugh at dumbasses like you quite often.

miami.muohio.eduindex.cfmOpen ↗

Dr. Jeffrey Aaron Potteiger Classification: faculty Title: Chair & Professor UniqueID: potteija
E-Mail Address: [email hidden] delivered to [email hidden] Division: VP - Provost
Department: Phys Educ Hlth Sport Studies Campus Address: Phys Educ Hlth & Sprt Studies Phillips
Hall, 106B Campus Phone: +1 513 529 2700

The party school is the University of Miami.

Any chance we can get the full citation? I'd like to review the full paper.

Chris

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

Quoted message said:

Here is a condensed preview of the numbers from the PC testing. The study was conducted by Mark D.
Luttrell, Dept of Health, Sport and Exercise Science, University of Kansas and Jeffrey A.
Pottteiger, Dept of Physical Education, Health and Sports Studies, Miami University.

The effects of 6 weeks of training with PCs was examined for 6 cyclists (+6 with regular
cranks) to determine changes in V02 max, AT, HR, V0, and RER during a 1 hour submaximal ride
(~69% V02 max).

Here are the numbers for Heartrate (HR) and Gross Efficiency (GE) before and after training.

Time (minutes)

PC Group 15 30 45 60

HR Pre 154 155 156 157

Post 141 140 141 141

GE (%)Pre 21.5 21.3 21.6 21.5

Post 23.1 23.0 23.6 23.9

Control Group

HR Pre 166 165 166 163

Post 159 159 159 160

GE (%) Pre 21.3 20.8 20.8 21.2

Post 21.8 21.5 21.3 21.0

Significant is the 2% increase in Gross Efficiency of the PC group.

Phil Holman

Dude,

I already wrote the only review that matters. Why try to reinvent the wheel?

Racer X

chris said:

Any chance we can get the full citation? I'd like to review the full paper.

Chris

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

Quoted message said:

Here is a condensed preview of the numbers from the PC testing. The study was conducted by Mark
D. Luttrell, Dept of Health, Sport and Exercise Science, University of Kansas and Jeffrey A.
Pottteiger, Dept of Physical Education, Health and Sports Studies, Miami University.

The effects of 6 weeks of training with PCs was examined for 6 cyclists (+6 with regular
cranks) to determine changes in V02 max, AT, HR, V0, and RER during a 1 hour submaximal ride
(~69% V02 max).

Here are the numbers for Heartrate (HR) and Gross Efficiency (GE) before and after training.

Time (minutes)

PC Group 15 30 45 60

HR Pre 154 155 156 157

Post 141 140 141 141

GE (%)Pre 21.5 21.3 21.6 21.5

Post 23.1 23.0 23.6 23.9

Control Group

HR Pre 166 165 166 163

Post 159 159 159 160

GE (%) Pre 21.3 20.8 20.8 21.2

Post 21.8 21.5 21.3 21.0

Significant is the 2% increase in Gross Efficiency of the PC group.

Phil Holman

Fair enough, but it's still a party school. And I stand by all my criticisms of that study.

Little if any damage was done to my credibility by not knowing that some school (mis)named Miami
University was located in southwestern Ohio. As a matter of fact, I think the name of the college is
intentionally designed to deceive applicants into thinking the beach is only a 5 minute drive from
their dorm.

And I also hereby add the entire state of Ohio and all its colleges and universities contained
within its state boundary to the official party school list. Now look what you've done.

At least the U. of Miami has a football program and some hot cheerleaders, many with thong tanlines.

involving work over time.

Q.I.D.

Racer X

Carl Sundquist said:

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

Quoted message said:

In addition, the University of Kansas and Miami University are both party schools and any
"scientific study" out of these overglorified frat houses probably aren't going to be appearing
in Nature anytime soon.

I'm confident that people in southwestern Ohio laugh at dumbasses like you quite often.

miami.muohio.eduindex.cfmOpen ↗

Dr. Jeffrey Aaron Potteiger Classification: faculty Title: Chair & Professor UniqueID: potteija
E-Mail Address: [email hidden] delivered to [email hidden] Division: VP - Provost
Department: Phys Educ Hlth Sport Studies Campus Address: Phys Educ Hlth & Sprt Studies
Phillips Hall, 106B Campus Phone: +1 513 529 2700

The party school is the University of Miami.

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

Quoted message said:

Fair enough, but it's still a party school. And I stand by all my

criticisms of that

Quoted message said:

study.

Little if any damage was done to my credibility by not knowing that some

school (mis)named

Quoted message said:

Miami University was located in southwestern Ohio. As a matter of fact,

I think the name

Quoted message said:

of the college is intentionally designed to deceive applicants into

thinking the beach is

Quoted message said:

only a 5 minute drive from their dorm.

Holy [censored]! You think people would enroll in a school before confirming which state it is located?

Quoted message said:

And I also hereby add the entire state of Ohio and all its colleges and

universities

Quoted message said:

contained within its state boundary to the official party school list.

Now look what

Quoted message said:

you've done.

Any college in the United States younger than 200 years is likely a party school.

I will withhold comment about the study until I can read the whole thing. For one thing, the report
below does not provide confidence intervals or level of significance; 2% could be accidental. As
for Racer X's comments on one aspect: both groups would have been training for those 6 weeks, not
just the experimental group; otherwise, his comment would be accurate (I am making the assumption
both were training as normal). 6 in each group is a small number; one of the common issues with
exercise studies.

Potteiger is a well-respected researcher with many peer review papers to his name. Do a PubMed
search if you want. His credentials are just fine.

It will probably not appear in NATURE, more likely (if it gets published) it will be in Medicine and
Science in Sport and Exercise or maybe Journal of Biomechanics.

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

Quoted message said:

HOLE MAN,

Why would a person who wants to find out whether or not POWER CRANKS are better than regular
cranks introduce the highly variable noise that this study does?

I could just as easily conclude from this data set that the reason why it showed a 2% increase in
"gross effiency" is because the subjects tested simply had an additional 6 weeks worth of training
under their belt. In

no

Quoted message said:

way, shape, or form, could one conclude that the extra 2% gain was due solely to the use of Power
Cranks. In fact, the subjects claimed 2% gain could have just as easily have come from a 3-4%
increase in fitness output coupled to a decrease of 1-2% (caused by the Power Cranks), thereby
resulting in a 2% net gain.

Also, no reputable scientist claims confidance in a study with an "n" number of only 6 subjects.

In addition, the University of Kansas and Miami University are both party schools and any
"scientific study" out of these overglorified frat houses probably aren't going to be appearing in
Nature anytime soon.

It was a nice infomercial though. One question: do Power Cranks come with

Quoted message said:

Take care,

Racer X

Phil Holman said:

Here is a condensed preview of the numbers from the PC testing. The study was conducted by Mark
D. Luttrell, Dept of Health, Sport and Exercise Science, University of Kansas and Jeffrey A.
Pottteiger, Dept of Physical Education, Health and Sports Studies, Miami University.

The effects of 6 weeks of training with PCs was examined for 6 cyclists (+6 with regular
cranks) to determine changes in V02 max, AT, HR, V0, and RER during a 1 hour submaximal ride
(~69% V02 max).

Here are the numbers for Heartrate (HR) and Gross Efficiency (GE) before and after training.

Time (minutes)

PC Group 15 30 45 60

HR Pre 154 155 156 157

Post 141 140 141 141

GE (%)Pre 21.5 21.3 21.6 21.5

Post 23.1 23.0 23.6 23.9

Control Group

HR Pre 166 165 166 163

Post 159 159 159 160

GE (%) Pre 21.3 20.8 20.8 21.2

Post 21.8 21.5 21.3 21.0

Significant is the 2% increase in Gross Efficiency of the PC group.

Phil Holman

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

Quoted message said:

Fair enough, but it's still a party school. And I stand by all my

criticisms of that

Quoted message said:

study.

Little if any damage was done to my credibility by not knowing that some

school (mis)named

Quoted message said:

Miami University was located in southwestern Ohio. As a matter of fact,

I think the name

Quoted message said:

of the college is intentionally designed to deceive applicants into

thinking the beach is

Quoted message said:

only a 5 minute drive from their dorm.

And I also hereby add the entire state of Ohio and all its colleges and

universities

Quoted message said:

contained within its state boundary to the official party school list.

Now look what

Quoted message said:

you've done.

At least the U. of Miami has a football program and some hot cheerleaders,

many with thong

Quoted message said:

tanlines.

Remember, (t)OSU beat UM back in January (married to a Buckeye alum).

Quoted message said:

studies of anything

Quoted message said:

involving work over time.

Q.I.D.

Racer X

Carl Sundquist said:

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

Quoted message said:

In addition, the University of Kansas and Miami University are both

party

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

schools and any "scientific study" out of these overglorified frat

houses

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

probably aren't going to be appearing in Nature anytime soon.

I'm confident that people in southwestern Ohio laugh at dumbasses like

you quite often.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

miami.muohio.eduindex.cfmOpen ↗

Dr. Jeffrey Aaron Potteiger Classification: faculty Title: Chair & Professor UniqueID: potteija
E-Mail Address: [email hidden] delivered to [email hidden] Division: VP -
Provost Department: Phys Educ Hlth Sport Studies Campus Address: Phys Educ Hlth & Sprt
Studies Phillips Hall, 106B Campus Phone: +1 513 529 2700

The party school is the University of Miami.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Fair enough, but it's still a party school. And I stand by all my

criticisms of that

Quoted message said:

study.

Little if any damage was done to my credibility by not knowing that some

school (mis)named

Quoted message said:

Miami University was located in southwestern Ohio. As a matter of

fact,

Quoted message said:

I think the name

Quoted message said:

of the college is intentionally designed to deceive applicants into

thinking the beach is

Quoted message said:

only a 5 minute drive from their dorm.

Holy [censored]! You think people would enroll in a school before confirming

which

Quoted message said:

state it is located?

Quoted message said:

And I also hereby add the entire state of Ohio and all its colleges and

universities

Quoted message said:

contained within its state boundary to the official party school list.

Now look what

Quoted message said:

you've done.

Any college in the United States younger than 200 years is likely a party school.

Even some older than 200 years--University of Georgia and University of North Carolina can party
well (both have good to excellent academic credentials within state universities)

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

Quoted message said:

I will withhold comment about the study until I can read the whole

thing.

Quoted message said:

For one thing, the report below does not provide confidence intervals

or

Quoted message said:

level of significance; 2% could be accidental. As for Racer X's

comments

Quoted message said:

on one aspect: both groups would have been training for those 6

weeks, not

Quoted message said:

just the experimental group; otherwise, his comment would be accurate

(I am

Quoted message said:

making the assumption both were training as normal). 6 in each group

is a

Quoted message said:

small number; one of the common issues with exercise studies.

Potteiger is a well-respected researcher with many peer review papers

to his

Quoted message said:

name. Do a PubMed search if you want. His credentials are just fine.

It will probably not appear in NATURE, more likely (if it gets

published) it

Quoted message said:

will be in Medicine and Science in Sport and Exercise or maybe Journal

of

Quoted message said:

Biomechanics.

I can email the entire article if you want. It's not a very good pdf file but readable.

Phil Holman

Phil Holman said:

Significant is the 2% increase in Gross Efficiency of the PC group.

1. Anything about delta efficiency?
2. Any other significant differences between groups?

Sam I am Green Eggs and Ham,

This study also wasn't double-blind, and there is no real way that one can actually measure
something as small as a 2% increase in "efficiency" with any reasonable degree of confidance that
couldn't just as easily be ascribed to standard deviation or imprecision of the measuring equipment.

As for making it into a journal, so did hundreds of studies that supposedly "proved" post-menopausal
women benfitted from hormone replacement therapy. Now they are saying it's actually bad for them and
all the science that went into it was never really good to begin with.

This study reaks of junk science in many ways. The low n number itself of 12 was reason enough to
not even conduct the study. The fact that he did it with 12 cyclists and is then trying to pawn off
the results as being statistically significant is already bad news for his reputation.

You are mistaken when you say the low number is merely a problem. It is a fatal problem.

How much do you want to bet that these Power Cranks do as well as Biopace when all is said and done?

Racer X

Sam said:

I will withhold comment about the study until I can read the whole thing. For one thing, the
report below does not provide confidence intervals or level of significance; 2% could be
accidental. As for Racer X's comments on one aspect: both groups would have been training for
those 6 weeks, not just the experimental group; otherwise, his comment would be accurate (I am
making the assumption both were training as normal). 6 in each group is a small number; one of the
common issues with exercise studies.

Potteiger is a well-respected researcher with many peer review papers to his name. Do a PubMed
search if you want. His credentials are just fine.

It will probably not appear in NATURE, more likely (if it gets published) it will be in Medicine
and Science in Sport and Exercise or maybe Journal of Biomechanics.

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

Quoted message said:

HOLE MAN,

Why would a person who wants to find out whether or not POWER CRANKS are better than regular
cranks introduce the highly variable noise that this study does?

I could just as easily conclude from this data set that the reason why it showed a 2% increase
in "gross effiency" is because the subjects tested simply had an additional 6 weeks worth of
training under their belt. In

no

Quoted message said:

way, shape, or form, could one conclude that the extra 2% gain was due solely to the use of
Power Cranks. In fact, the subjects claimed 2% gain could have just as easily have come from a
3-4% increase in fitness output coupled to a decrease of 1-2% (caused by the Power Cranks),
thereby resulting in a 2% net gain.

Also, no reputable scientist claims confidance in a study with an "n" number of only 6 subjects.

In addition, the University of Kansas and Miami University are both party schools and any
"scientific study" out of these overglorified frat houses probably aren't going to be appearing
in Nature anytime soon.

It was a nice infomercial though. One question: do Power Cranks come with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Take care,

Racer X

Phil Holman said:

Here is a condensed preview of the numbers from the PC testing. The study was conducted by
Mark D. Luttrell, Dept of Health, Sport and Exercise Science, University of Kansas and Jeffrey
A. Pottteiger, Dept of Physical Education, Health and Sports Studies, Miami University.

The effects of 6 weeks of training with PCs was examined for 6 cyclists (+6 with regular
cranks) to determine changes in V02 max, AT, HR, V0, and RER during a 1 hour submaximal ride
(~69% V02 max).

Here are the numbers for Heartrate (HR) and Gross Efficiency (GE) before and after training.

Time (minutes)

PC Group 15 30 45 60

HR Pre 154 155 156 157

Post 141 140 141 141

GE (%)Pre 21.5 21.3 21.6 21.5

Post 23.1 23.0 23.6 23.9

Control Group

HR Pre 166 165 166 163

Post 159 159 159 160

GE (%) Pre 21.3 20.8 20.8 21.2

Post 21.8 21.5 21.3 21.0

Significant is the 2% increase in Gross Efficiency of the PC group.

Phil Holman

Interesting that they finally got this study published. What journal accepted it? When they
presented the abstract at ACSM people lined up at the mic to bash the study. The moderator finally
had to cut it off.

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

Quoted message said:

Here is a condensed preview of the numbers from the PC testing. The study was conducted by Mark D.
Luttrell, Dept of Health, Sport and Exercise Science, University of Kansas and Jeffrey A.
Pottteiger, Dept of Physical Education, Health and Sports Studies, Miami University.

The effects of 6 weeks of training with PCs was examined for 6 cyclists (+6 with regular
cranks) to determine changes in V02 max, AT, HR, V0, and RER during a 1 hour submaximal ride
(~69% V02 max).

Here are the numbers for Heartrate (HR) and Gross Efficiency (GE) before and after training.

Time (minutes)

PC Group 15 30 45 60

HR Pre 154 155 156 157

Post 141 140 141 141

GE (%)Pre 21.5 21.3 21.6 21.5

Post 23.1 23.0 23.6 23.9

Control Group

HR Pre 166 165 166 163

Post 159 159 159 160

GE (%) Pre 21.3 20.8 20.8 21.2

Post 21.8 21.5 21.3 21.0

Significant is the 2% increase in Gross Efficiency of the PC group.

Phil Holman

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (grisoft.comgrisoft.comOpen ↗).
Version: 6.0.522 / Virus Database: 320 - Release Date: 9/29/2003

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

Quoted message said:

Phil Holman said:

Significant is the 2% increase in Gross Efficiency of the PC group.

1. Anything about delta efficiency?
2. Any other significant differences between groups?

If you send me your real email I'll send you a copy. Per Jim Martin's comment, this has not been
published yet and according to the source of the data, this was scheduled to happen in November.
According to Jim, it might be a challenge.

Phil Holman

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

Quoted message said:

You are mistaken when you say the low number is merely a problem. It is a fatal problem.

How much do you want to bet that these Power Cranks do as well as Biopace when all is said
and done?

Racer X

Biopace still has its advocates. The question is: are they as good as rotor Cranks? They are being
used by some 2nd division pros, Spanish triathletes, et al. They look to be an eccentric cam device
intended to eliminate the dead spot that Power Cranks emphasize for training.

rotorbike.comhome.htmOpen ↗

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

Quoted message said:

Interesting that they finally got this study published. What journal accepted it? When they
presented the abstract at ACSM people lined up

at the

Quoted message said:

mic to bash the study. The moderator finally had to cut it off.

Any of them named Racer X by chance. It hasn't been published yet so my original post was a fyi and
this one is a sneak preview of the data. Anyone interested in a full copy of the article can email
me (Racer X included).

Thanks

Phil Holman

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Here is a condensed preview of the numbers from the PC testing. The study was conducted by Mark
D. Luttrell, Dept of Health, Sport and Exercise Science, University of Kansas and Jeffrey A.
Pottteiger,

Dept

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of Physical Education, Health and Sports Studies, Miami University.

The effects of 6 weeks of training with PCs was examined for 6

cyclists

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(+6 with regular cranks) to determine changes in V02 max, AT, HR,

V0,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and RER during a 1 hour submaximal ride (~69% V02 max).

Here are the numbers for Heartrate (HR) and Gross Efficiency (GE)

before

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and after training.

Time (minutes)

PC Group 15 30 45 60

HR Pre 154 155 156 157

Post 141 140 141 141

GE (%)Pre 21.5 21.3 21.6 21.5

Post 23.1 23.0 23.6 23.9

Control Group

HR Pre 166 165 166 163

Post 159 159 159 160

GE (%) Pre 21.3 20.8 20.8 21.2

Post 21.8 21.5 21.3 21.0

Significant is the 2% increase in Gross Efficiency of the PC group.

Phil Holman

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (grisoft.comgrisoft.comOpen ↗).
Version: 6.0.522 / Virus Database: 320 - Release Date: 9/29/2003

Power Cranks are training aids designed to improve pedal stroke with conventional circular cranks.
They have little in common with BioPace, which was designed to accomodate poor pedal strokes.

The moral of this study is it's a good idea to work on pedal stroke. One legged pedalling,
low-cadence climbing, downhill spinning -- there are many approaches. This is just one.

Dan

RK said:

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

Quoted message said:

You are mistaken when you say the low number is merely a problem. It is a fatal problem.

How much do you want to bet that these Power Cranks do as well as Biopace when all is said
and done?

Racer X

Biopace still has its advocates.

I think this is different than the original study they did, which i saw many years ago, which never
got published (maybe now I know why). You, of course, are welcome to bash it again, if you see fit,
after it is published. Of course, now you will have to put your thoughts in writing, affix a name to
the criticism, and let your criticism undergo editorial scrutiny and be forever embarrased if your
criticism is based solely on bias.

Was the criticism of the original study you heard similar to the criticisms heard about "cold
fusion" (impossible) or related to the methods and design of the study?

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

Quoted message said:

Interesting that they finally got this study published. What journal accepted it? When they
presented the abstract at ACSM people lined up at the mic to bash the study. The moderator finally
had to cut it off.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Interesting that they finally got this study published. What journal accepted it? When they
presented the abstract at ACSM people lined up

at the

Quoted message said:

mic to bash the study. The moderator finally had to cut it off.

Any of them named Racer X by chance.

If memory serves those at the mic included Jeff Broker (then the head of biomechanics at USOC), Dave
Martin (Austalian Inst of Sport), a few others, and me.

Quoted message said:

It hasn't been published yet

Yes, but what journal WILL it apear in?

Cheers,

Jim

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (grisoft.comgrisoft.comOpen ↗).
Version: 6.0.522 / Virus Database: 320 - Release Date: 9/29/2003