Powercranks

In article <[email hidden]>,

David Damerell said:

Quoted message said:

race. After he recovered he got a trike where he is using his arms to peddle. I asked him if he
is only pushing the pedals with his arms or if he both pushes and pulls. What do you think the
answere was? And what do you think would be the best thing to do? And what is the difference
using your legs instead of your arms?

The difference (as really ought to be blindingly obvious) is that it is enormously more difficult
to develop the arm muscles to a point where they are not the limiting factor rather than the
cardiovascular system, because they are inherently much smaller and not exercised by walking.

On occasions when I've not fancied doing anything with my legs --- such as 72 hours after my
vasectomy --- I've used those hand-crank things in the gym. I can't recall why, but I did them daily
for about three months last summer, and in fact I did get up to a point where I might just about
have been heart-rate limited rather than muscle strength limited. I did this by turning them quickly
against a light-ish resistance.

I've briefly ridden the hand-crank trike of a friend of my parents who's in a chair. His has the two
hand grips next to each other, rather than in the more obvious 180 degree relationship like the
pedals on a bike, because his break is quite high and opposed cranks require stomach muscles to
stabilise.

ian

Hjalmar Duklæt said:

Quoted message said:

I just come to think of another exampel. There is a former rider here in town that got paralysed
in his legs from a crash with a car during a road race. After he recovered he got a trike where
he is using his arms to peddle. I asked him if he is only pushing the pedals with his arms or if
he both pushes and pulls. What do you think the answere was? And what do you think would be the
best thing to do? And what is the difference using your legs instead of your arms? Do you see
the point?

The point is that one's arms aren't one's legs. A second point is that the leg flexors aren't the
leg extensors.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
> Bill who? writes:
>
> >> Hi. I'm new the the group but thought this would be the right

place

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >> to ask. Just got a set of Powercranks and put them on the bike I've been using on my
> >> Computrainer. Gee, I used to enjoy my Computrainer! Now I can only ride it for about 3
> >> miles!

Anyone

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >> else had experience with Powercranks? Does this get better or

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >> this why I see them on e-bay so often?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > Here is some interesting feedback:
>
> pezcyclingnews.compezcyclingnews.comOpen ↗
>
> > The author, Josh Horowitz, should be comming upon his one month update shortly.
>
> That makes painful reading for me, having ridden Power Cranks on a demo just long enough to
> understand what the concept is. No doubt

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> is exhausting and it builds new muscles to do a task that ordinary cranks make unnecessary.
> The easiest way to return the

foot/pedal/leg

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> from the bottom of the stroke to the next power stroke is to let

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> ride. That is, unless you don;t have two reasonably equal legs

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> are balanced when you sit on the bicycle without a chain.
>
> If you see two riders, one with weight lifter muscles and a slim,

no

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> fat rider with big lungs, I believe that most riders will

recognize

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> the bikie as the slender guy. That's because only for sprints are

big

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> extra muscles useful. The limit of most fit bicyclists is not

muscles

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> but cardiovascular. More muscles and using otherwise unused

muscles

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> in propulsion is someone's dream of a speed secret.
>
> This goes in the same bucket as round pedaling and ankling.
>
> This sounds so much like patent medicine with no supporting

evidence:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Save your debunking for Easter bunnies, Keebler elves and thinner

thighs

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in 30 days.

tinyurl.com2nthpOpen ↗

There is plenty of empirical observation plus it is now supported by some scientific testing
which at the very least would require the

most

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

cynical pundit to re-evaluate their position. With your demonstrated bias and misconceptions
of physiological function I wouldn't even consider you worthy of that category.

Phil Holman

Dear Phil,

I remember seeing that web page before, but was disappointed to find that it's just the
abstract.

Unless I missed something, the actual article requires either a $105 subscription or else twenty
bucks for a single article.

Can you suggest any similar links that aren't quite so expensive?

Or offer a quick interpretation for the layman of what the somewhat dense abstract is saying?

A rough interpretation is "hand over your money and don't be such a tight wad" :-)

Basically there was a gross efficiency improvement of around 2.6%. A normal efficiency of say
22.5% means that of the total energy expended, only 22.5% of it actually ends up propelling the
rider. An increase of
2.6% means that now 26.1% is propelling the rider.

Duh, make that 25.1%. I've been burning the midnight oil again and paying the price.

Phil Holman

It is unlikely that the PowerCranks "work" as a result of either the Hawthorne effect or placebo
because the first experience of every user is a substantial worsening of performance. Only after
several weeks or months effort do the benefits become evident, although the typical new user can see
the potential for benefit almost immediately.

Frank (inventor of PowerCranks for those who don't know me)

(Carl Fogel) said:

Dear Tim,

I agree that the two are technically different effects, but I think that their similarities
combine quite nicely.

As in the true Hawthorne effect, the subject seems to be motivated by being observed in our
typical stirring tales of bicycle improvement, in which--sweet Jesus!--the subject is also the
observer.

(There is no Hawthorne effect when the subject is observed secretly--you can watch me for weeks
through a telescope without motivating me to pedal any faster.)

As in a true placebo effect, the subject also has pre-existing expectations that whatever
contraption is being tested will help him, which it often does, suggesting that expectations have
consequences when it's important how hard we try.

(There is no placebo effect, for example, when people are told that a daily sugar tablet will make
them grow taller--neither effort nor psychology has any known effect on growth rate.)

Whatever the combined effects should be called, it's remarkable how often a cleaned chain,
new tires, a different gear ratio, and a host of other tricks produce improved times--for a
week or so.

After that, we tend to drift back into slower times because we've forgotten how fast that new
piece of equipment was going to make us and are no longer "observing" ourselves closely enough
during the ride to motivate ourselves.

(Real mechanical advantages don't dwindle.)

I recently produced a marked improvement in my daily times just by noting what my watch said at
seven check-points on my daily loop. I suspect that seven new goals motivated me to pay attention
and pedal.

When I stopped worrying about reaching each checkpoint, I relaxed--and my overall time dropped
noticeably.

Carl Fogel

"Hjalmar Duklæt" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yeah, in a way I do. Can somebody tell me why using more muscle groups isn't better? And also why
do your muscles get tired/exhausted? Is it only because your cardiovascular system is not keeping
up, or can the muscles get tired even if they get enough fuel? I know that I've been a better
rider after starting to use the back stroke actively.

How's that? Your "back stroke" muscles only have about 10% of the power of your "fore stroke"
muscles, so 100% use would make you 3% faster. That's if you weren't already cardio-vascularly
limited, and didn't suffer from any overhead or inefficiencies in recruiting the extra muscles. I
think your gains are in your imagination.

Peter Cole said:

"Hjalmar Duklæt" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yeah, in a way I do. Can somebody tell me why using more muscle groups isn't better? And also why
do your muscles get tired/exhausted? Is it only because your cardiovascular system is not keeping
up, or can the muscles get tired even if they get enough fuel? I know that I've been a better
rider after starting to use the back stroke actively.

How's that? Your "back stroke" muscles only have about 10% of the power of your "fore stroke"
muscles, so 100% use would make you 3% faster. That's if you weren't already cardio-vascularly
limited, and didn't suffer from any overhead or inefficiencies in recruiting the extra muscles. I
think your gains are in your imagination.

How I've understood it is that when applying those backstroke muscles we are releaving the fore
stroke muscles the effort of lifting the back leg up. So what we are really doing is unweighting the
pedal that is on it's way up. Thus leaving us with more power to use going down. Then of course it
doesn't hurt to have a smooth transition and that's what I think this mudscraping and timber rolling
stuff does.

--
Perre

You have to be smarter than a robot to reply.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm a Ph.D. physiologist/biomechanical engineer

Then you should know that Google Groups can be your friend. tinyurl.com28e2aOpen ↗

In one of those threads is a short exchange between Frank Day, the inventor of Powercranks, and
Jim Martin, who was present at the ACSM meetings when the abstract for the recently published
article was discussed.

Actually I think Jim was at a presentation of an earlier work done by Luttrell several years ago. I
think the more recent research addresses some of the concerns raised at that meeting. I might be
wrong on this but I believe it to be the case. The people to address these questions to though are
really the authors of the study. If you were to read the study it is pretty clean and
straightforward.

Frank

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

Quoted message said:

Here is some interesting feedback: pezcyclingnews.compezcyclingnews.comOpen ↗ The author,
Josh Horowitz, should be comming upon his one month update shortly. Bill

I received some third hand reports yesterday that Josh had some interesting race results last
weekend that should have some relevance to this discussion. Many, but I especially, am looking
forward to his next report. (Some may not look forward to it as it might go against their bias).

Frank

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

Quoted message said:

Hjalmar Duklæt said:

I just come to think of another exampel. There is a former rider here in town that got paralysed
in his legs from a crash with a car during a road race. After he recovered he got a trike where
he is using his arms to peddle. I asked him if he is only pushing the pedals with his arms or if
he both pushes and pulls. What do you think the answere was? And what do you think would be the
best thing to do? And what is the difference using your legs instead of your arms?

The difference (as really ought to be blindingly obvious) is that it is enormously more difficult
to develop the arm muscles to a point where they are not the limiting factor rather than the
cardiovascular system, because they are inherently much smaller and not exercised by walking.

Dear David,

What a shame that you couldn't work "deaf" in, too.

Carl Fogel

Phil Holman said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> This goes in the same bucket as round pedaling and ankling.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> This sounds so much like patent medicine with no supporting evidence:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Save your debunking for Easter bunnies, Keebler elves and thinner thighs in 30 days.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

tinyurl.com2nthpOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There is plenty of empirical observation plus it is now supported by some scientific testing
which at the very least would require the most cynical pundit to re-evaluate their position.
With your demonstrated bias and misconceptions of physiological function I wouldn't even
consider you worthy of that category.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The article is full of qualified claims that can mean almost anything. Let's see how the same
high level racers perform on TT's before and after this regimen. For instance, how did they do
on the Mt Evans Hill Climb or on a flat one rather than "better gross efficiency on a
submaximal ride".

Quoted message said:

Of course something like that is harder to control experimentally and in my own case I've seen my
performance improvements discounted so why would anyone else's be different and why the need for
high level racers?

Only with well trained riders is an improvement in performance a valid indication that the method
works. At less than that, just training would improve performance and having expensive training aids
such as these cranks induces the rider to train.

Quoted message said:

A high level of performance isn't a requirement, in fact with all uncertainty of enhanced
performance supplements, I would think a mid-pack rider out of the amateur ranks would be a better
candidate for such an experiment. I say this from a scientific viewpoint and not from someone who
has a marketing interest.

Against what criterion would that improvement be measured?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This like many gimmicks of the past will fade into obscurity after all the hyperbole.

Quoted message said:

Possibly, although this won't have anything to do with whether they work or not. There is no free
lunch with the cranks and the fact that they are such hard work may maintain their use by the more
stalwart athlete.

I don't understand what you mean by that.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

Hjalmar Dukl?t said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> If you see two riders, one with weight lifter muscles and a slim, no fat rider with big lungs,
> I believe that most riders will recognize the bikie as the slender guy. That's because only for
> sprints are big extra muscles useful. The limit of most fit bicyclists is not muscles but
> cardiovascular. More muscles and using otherwise unused muscles in propulsion is someone's
> dream of a speed secret.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well, this is probably true for maximum effort but I would believe that using extra muscle
groups to do the work would be beneficial when it comes to endurance and submaximal efforts. It
would take longer before the muscles were exhausted. During a 5 hours road race I guess this is
what counts, not your cardiovascular maximum limit.Or am I completely wrong here?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For long events, the limits are very much cardiovascular. Weight is weight, whether it's fat,
muscle or bike, and it takes more work to haul weight uphill. In any sort of race with any
significant climbing, the lighter rider is at an advantage and it doesn't matter if it's fat or
muscle.

Quoted message said:

I'm not talking about weight. I'm talking about using more muscle groups to do the work. And I
don't understand that doing so isn't beneficial. Why are xc skiers using their arms (using extra
muscle groups) when skiing if it's the cardiovascular system that's the limiting factor? They
could have thrown their poles into the forest and saved some weight and only using their legs
harder. I don't believe in this.

The example you give are for different functions that are complementary in the sport. Pedaling is a
singular effort and it is best done with the principal muscles that humans develop naturally. As I
said, adding hand cranks to a bicycle do not improve propulsion.

There is another exercise that makes the effect more apparent and that is to ride at a high constant
rate on the level while mentally counting cadence 1-2-3-1-2-3... on each down stroke while
monitoring speed on a speedometer. Changing the regimen to push down only on the count of "1"
reduces power strokes to 1/3 as many, yet speed at the same effort will remain constant. There is no
benefit to this method other than to show that the effort is cardiovascular and not round pedaling
or PowerCranks.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> "]news:[email hidden]...
> > Bill who? writes:
> >
> > >> Hi. I'm new the the group but thought this would be the right

place

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > >> to ask. Just got a set of Powercranks and put them on the bike I've been using on my
> > >> Computrainer. Gee, I used to enjoy my Computrainer! Now I can only ride it for about 3
> > >> miles!

Anyone

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > >> else had experience with Powercranks? Does this get better or

is

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > >> this why I see them on e-bay so often?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > Here is some interesting feedback:
> >
> > pezcyclingnews.compezcyclingnews.comOpen ↗
> >
> > > The author, Josh Horowitz, should be comming upon his one month update shortly.
> >
> > That makes painful reading for me, having ridden Power Cranks on a demo just long enough
> > to understand what the concept is. No doubt

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > is exhausting and it builds new muscles to do a task that ordinary cranks make
> > unnecessary. The easiest way to return the

foot/pedal/leg

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > from the bottom of the stroke to the next power stroke is to let

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > ride. That is, unless you don;t have two reasonably equal legs

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > are balanced when you sit on the bicycle without a chain.
> >
> > If you see two riders, one with weight lifter muscles and a slim,

no

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > fat rider with big lungs, I believe that most riders will

recognize

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > the bikie as the slender guy. That's because only for sprints are

big

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > extra muscles useful. The limit of most fit bicyclists is not

muscles

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > but cardiovascular. More muscles and using otherwise unused

muscles

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > in propulsion is someone's dream of a speed secret.
> >
> > This goes in the same bucket as round pedaling and ankling.
> >
> > This sounds so much like patent medicine with no supporting

evidence:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
> Save your debunking for Easter bunnies, Keebler elves and thinner

thighs

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> in 30 days.
>
> tinyurl.com2nthpOpen ↗
>
> There is plenty of empirical observation plus it is now supported by some scientific testing
> which at the very least would require the

most

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> cynical pundit to re-evaluate their position. With your demonstrated bias and misconceptions
> of physiological function I wouldn't even consider you worthy of that category.
>
> Phil Holman

Dear Phil,

I remember seeing that web page before, but was disappointed to find that it's just the
abstract.

Unless I missed something, the actual article requires either a $105 subscription or else
twenty bucks for a single article.

Can you suggest any similar links that aren't quite so expensive?

Or offer a quick interpretation for the layman of what the somewhat dense abstract is saying?

A rough interpretation is "hand over your money and don't be such a tight wad" :-)

Basically there was a gross efficiency improvement of around 2.6%. A normal efficiency of say
22.5% means that of the total energy expended, only 22.5% of it actually ends up propelling the
rider. An increase of
2.6% means that now 26.1% is propelling the rider.

Duh, make that 25.1%. I've been burning the midnight oil again and paying the price.

Phil Holman

Deer Fill,

U'd bettor stik two nummers. Tpyos sre anecxusable! Know wun kan figger owt whatcha meen 'f ya mqke
uh misteak 'n ritin'.

Carrl Fogle

Frank Day said:

"Robert Chung" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Then you should know that Google Groups can be your friend. tinyurl.com28e2aOpen ↗

In one of those threads is a short exchange between Frank Day, the inventor of Powercranks, and
Jim Martin, who was present at the ACSM meetings when the abstract for the recently published
article was discussed.

I think the more recent research addresses some of the concerns raised at that meeting.

Excellent. So, since you read the paper, can you summarize what their initial hypothesis was and its
relationship to efficiency?

Quoted message said:

same effort will remain constant. There is no benefit to this method other than to show that the
effort is cardiovascular and not round pedaling or PowerCranks.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

IMHO limitations in effort are "never" cardiovascular but "always" local. Rowers and XC skiers have
higher VO2 max capabilities than runners and cyclists because they use more muscle mass in their
sports. The cardiovasuclar system is perfectly capable of responding to almost any repeated stress
to improve capability. Unfortunately, this adaptation is slow and takes substantial time.

The limitations in performance come when anaerobic efforts ensue and this is always local, otherwise
we would all be stopping our efforts with chest pain, not exhaustion.

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

Quoted message said:

Excellent. So, since you read the paper, can you summarize what their initial hypothesis was and
its relationship to efficiency?

The Hypothesis was essentially "Does sort-term training with PowerCranks improve cycling efficiency
over traditional training"

Two groups of 6 "trained cyclists" (criterion was completion of at least 3 cycling or triathlon
races in last 6 months) matched (one woman in each group). Pre testing involved VO2 max then 1 hour
sub maximal ride at 69% VO2 max. Measured bunch of stuff including wattage, HR, and VO2.

Each group then rode a bike with regular cranks or a bike with PowerCranks in the laboratory for 1
hour 3 times a week and maintained their usual training outside the lab. After 6 weeks each group
was tested again. The PC group showed significant improvement compared to both themselves and the
non-PC group. Most significant to my mind was the improvement in pedaling efficiency (watts per VO2
uptake) from 21 to 23% which correlated with a 14 bpm drop in HR at the same power (155 to 141) if I
remember the number correctly. The non PC group showed some improvement but it was insignificant
statistically. There was no improvement in VO2 max at the end for either group.

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

Quoted message said:

Hjalmar Duklæt said:

I just come to think of another exampel. There is a former rider here

in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

town that got paralysed in his legs from a crash with a car during a

road

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

race. After he recovered he got a trike where he is using his arms to peddle. I asked him if he
is only pushing the pedals with his arms or

if he

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

both pushes and pulls. What do you think the answere was? And what do

you

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

think would be the best thing to do? And what is the difference using

your

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

legs instead of your arms?

The difference (as really ought to be blindingly obvious) is that it

is

Quoted message said:

enormously more difficult to develop the arm muscles to a point where

they

Quoted message said:

are not the limiting factor rather than the cardiovascular system,

because

Quoted message said:

they are inherently much smaller and not exercised by walking.

And it just so happens that the limiting factor for cycling occurs at the point when the quads and
glutes are fully developed and engaged and not one muscle fibre more (tongue in cheek) What a
coincidence.....don't you think?

Phil Holman

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

Quoted message said:

Phil Holman said:

Quoted message said:

>> This goes in the same bucket as round pedaling and ankling.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> This sounds so much like patent medicine with no supporting evidence:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Save your debunking for Easter bunnies, Keebler elves and thinner thighs in 30 days.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> tinyurl.com2nthpOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> There is plenty of empirical observation plus it is now supported by some scientific testing
> which at the very least would require the most cynical pundit to re-evaluate their position.
> With your demonstrated bias and misconceptions of physiological function I wouldn't even
> consider you worthy of that category.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The article is full of qualified claims that can mean almost anything. Let's see how the same
high level racers perform on TT's before and after this regimen. For instance, how did they do
on the Mt Evans Hill Climb or on a flat one rather than "better gross efficiency on a
submaximal ride".

Quoted message said:

Of course something like that is harder to control experimentally and in my own case I've seen
my performance improvements discounted so why would anyone else's be different and why the need
for high level racers?

Only with well trained riders is an improvement in performance a valid indication that the method
works. At less than that, just training would improve performance and having expensive training
aids such as these cranks induces the rider to train.

Even in well trained athletes performance improvements occur all the time so how would one separate
a valid indication with a training aid from something that would have occurred anyway? When I tested
the cranks I limited my mileage and training methods to current levels. However after several weeks
I found I was able to perform intervals at higher levels than I previously could. Coming up with a
good test protocol is not so easy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A high level of performance isn't a requirement, in fact with all uncertainty of enhanced
performance supplements, I would think a mid-pack rider out of the amateur ranks would be a
better candidate for such an experiment. I say this from a scientific viewpoint and not from
someone who has a marketing interest.

Against what criterion would that improvement be measured?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This like many gimmicks of the past will fade into obscurity after all the hyperbole.

Quoted message said:

Possibly, although this won't have anything to do with whether they work or not. There is no
free lunch with the cranks and the fact that they are such hard work may maintain their use by
the more stalwart athlete.

I don't understand what you mean by that.

The likes of Bio-Pace chain-rings which claimed instant improvement were easily tested and
dispatched. With the cranks, the likelihood that they will fade away is because people will not want
to invest the extra effort in training with them and not because they don't work. Once the mechanism
of what they do is understood, an easier method may be devised to accomplish the same thing.
Speculation on my part but future design improvements in the cranks themselves may accomplish this.

Phil Holman

Phil Holman said:

"David Damerell" <[email hidden]> wrote...

Quoted message said:

Hjalmar Duklæt said:

I just come to think of another exampel. There is a former rider here in town that got paralysed
in his legs from a crash with a car during a road race. After he recovered he got a trike where
he is using his arms to peddle. I asked him if he is only pushing the pedals with his arms or if
he both pushes and pulls. What do you think the answere was? And what do you think would be the
best thing to do? And what is the difference using your legs instead of your arms?

The difference (as really ought to be blindingly obvious) is that it is enormously more difficult
to develop the arm muscles to a point where they are not the limiting factor rather than the
cardiovascular system, because they are inherently much smaller and not exercised by walking.

And it just so happens that the limiting factor for cycling occurs at the point when the quads and
glutes are fully developed and engaged and not one muscle fibre more (tongue in cheek) What a
coincidence.....don't you think?

Huh? The limiting factor in cycling becomes the cardiovascular system before the quads and glutes
are "fully developed" -- so why would developing these muscles further change that?

--
Benjamin Lewis

Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.

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

Quoted message said:

Hjalmar Duklæt said:

I'm not talking about weight. I'm talking about using more muscle

groups to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

do the work. And I don't understand that doing so isn't benefitial.

Why are

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

xc skiers using their arms (using extra muscle groups) when skiing if

it's

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the cardiovascular system that's the limiting factor?

Is the cardiovascular system the limiting factor for XC skiing?

Even if it is, it may well be that using legs alone would not make efficient use of the available
power. This is not the case for

cycling.

References please?

Phil Holman

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

[snip]

Quoted message said:

The example you give are for different functions that are complementary in the sport. Pedaling is
a singular effort and it is best done with the principal muscles that humans develop naturally. As
I said, adding hand cranks to a bicycle do not improve propulsion.

There is another exercise that makes the effect more apparent and that is to ride at a high
constant rate on the level while mentally counting cadence 1-2-3-1-2-3... on each down stroke
while monitoring speed on a speedometer. Changing the regimen to push down only on the count of
"1" reduces power strokes to 1/3 as many, yet speed at the same effort will remain constant. There
is no benefit to this method other than to show that the effort is cardiovascular and not round
pedaling or PowerCranks.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

Dear Jobst,

Are you saying that I should be able to maintain my highest normal level speed for miles by whirling
my feet at the same cadence, but applying pressure only every third stroke?

Will I need to press three times as hard as normal every third stroke? Perhaps this is covered by
"the same effort" in your brief example?

On a related note, why do distance swimmers use both their arms and legs? Why do cross-country
skiers use their poles while striding? I'm ignorant of these sports, but have the impression that
they involve using all four limbs, not just two, and make huge cardiovascular demands.

Carl Fogel