Scientific Proof?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by theedge
I read about PowerCranks on cyclingnews.com. Has anyone tried them?

I think PowerCranks is the best device to prove whether ILT works or not. It's a pair of cranks that are independant on each other. Riding with PC is virtually the same as doing ILT for both legs all the time. If PC can improve cycling performance then ILT is beneficial.

But yop would still be pedaling with two legs, therefore the metabolic response would be similar to pedaling with two legs not one leg. On this basis PowerCranks would be far different from ILT?

Also as far as I'm aware there are no UCI rulings on cranks of this type (I've not seen the cranks) so they could be used in competition. If they are effective, why are they not used in competition or training or touring or track sprinting more?

The question is... if ILT is a useful form of training for normal cycling (sprint or endurance) and I think a number of well contoled training studies rather than PowerCranks would be needed to answer that question.

As for Crowley's technique, can anyone apart from JA and Crowley do it yet?

2LAP:

I don't understand why we have to wait for controlled studies to find out if something works. Do we need studies to think for ourselves??? For example, did you need a study to pick your chosen vocation??? What about the kind of shoes you wear??? Why is training any different???

Every rider on this board can do their own experimentation on a trainer. If you keep the settings the same (resistance on mags, tire pressure, roller contact, etc.), use a cadence meter, and keep accurate training logs/records, you can chart your progress with any equipment/training advice that is mentioned on this board or elsewhere.

Everyone who has been on this board for a while knows there is often substantial difference in the advice given. All riders on this board who want to find the truth for themselves need to do their own research, not wait for a study that may never materialize.

Find out the truth for yourselves!!!

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by J-MAT
2LAP:

I don't understand why we have to wait for controlled studies to find out if something works. Do we need studies to think for ourselves??? For example, did you need a study to pick your chosen vocation??? What about the kind of shoes you wear??? Why is training any different???

Every rider on this board can do their own experimentation on a trainer. If you keep the settings the same (resistance on mags, tire pressure, roller contact, etc.), use a cadence meter, and keep accurate training logs/records, you can chart your progress with any equipment/training advice that is mentioned on this board or elsewhere.

Everyone who has been on this board for a while knows there is often substantial difference in the advice given. All riders on this board who want to find the truth for themselves need to do their own research, not wait for a study that may never materialize.

Find out the truth for yourselves!!!

Now you are on the right track, the problem with cycling is
that all riders are like sheep, blindly following the traditional
advice that has been handed down from generation to
generation.But nobody has any proof that this is the
infallible way to do it. Except for Obree and Anquetil who went
their own way and became world champions, everyone else
just blindly follows.

Hay J-MAT,
I actualy agree with you a lot and I think its really important that riders do experiment! A controled training study would demonstrate the magnitude of ILT and who knows it may show a benefit (making me way off track on this one).

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by J-MAT
Do we need studies to think for ourselves???

They can help you see the wood for the trees, whats the point in experimenting and loosing good thinking time by trying to find out what is already known.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by J-MAT
For example, did you need a study to pick your chosen vocation???

Yes, I work in research (hence my bias about needing decent evidence).

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by J-MAT
What about the kind of shoes you wear???

Yes again, I get very bad shin splints when I run. I have spent lots of time looking at what makes a good trainer and a bad trainer. I haven't had shin spints for about two years now. Although my current trainers are wearing out and they don't make them any more. 🙁

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by J-MAT
Why is training any different???

I have limited time and like to choose forms of training that will have maximal impact on the specific factors that will effect my performance! This information is in loads of caoching books and in research papers. It would take years to gain this information at home on my turbo, I prefer to pick a book off a shelf and find out what works best.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by J-MAT
Every rider on this board can do their own experimentation on a trainer. If you keep the settings the same (resistance on mags, tire pressure, roller contact, etc.), use a cadence meter, and keep accurate training logs/records, you can chart your progress with any equipment/training advice that is mentioned on this board or elsewhere.

Everyone who has been on this board for a while knows there is often substantial difference in the advice given. All riders on this board who want to find the truth for themselves need to do their own research, not wait for a study that may never materialize.

Find out the truth for yourselves!!!

I'm with you on all of that!!!

I can suggest why I don't think ILT wouldn't be as effective as two leg training for most (not all) situations and you can do the opporsite. That just makes interesting discussion (for me at least), but I think that topic has been done to death! Without a number of proper studies there will never be an answer either way.

(BTW, I don't think that any ILT training study will be coming out too soon as training studies are difficult to do, expensive, have huge limitations and and ILT study won't save lives).

WRT to ILT, I don't do it as I recon I can train myself to peddle better by analysing my peddle stokes as I ride with two legs. I know that when I concentrate on the upstoke I can back off on the down and maintain the same speed on the bike. Also, on the indoor trainer I can hear when I'm pounding the peddles down as the fluid drive does not make a continuous noise, I can hear the cycles of the downward force.

I think that just thinking about what you're doing; listening to your body, is this good or bad? More or less effective? Easier or harder? Is a good enough measure at my level (not a very high level).

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by n crowley
Now you are on the right track, the problem with cycling is
that all riders are like sheep, blindly following the traditional
advice that has been handed down from generation to
generation.

Most sports research has been done since 1970, therefore I am blindly following my own generation questioning traditional advice from other generations.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by n crowley
Except for Obree and Anquetil who went
their own way and became world champions, everyone else
just blindly follows.

I use the Peter Keen Zones, used to produce a number of world champs (Boardman, McGregor, etc), is this approach not unique? Why is it so bad if it has proven successes and can be backed up by science? Obree and Anquetil were great riders, but their approach wasn't that extreme (even Chris Boardman had a bike designed for him ('Lotus Sport'😉).

Originally posted by J-MAT, i responded with >>

Every rider on this board can do their own experimentation on a trainer. If you keep the settings the same (resistance on mags, tire pressure, roller contact, etc.), use a cadence meter, and keep accurate training logs/records, you can chart your progress with any equipment/training advice that is mentioned on this board or elsewhere.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The problem with this (and like 2Lap i *am* in favour of experimenting), is that in virtually *all* trainers as you keep riding the resistance is altered as the tyre/roller interface warms up. On many trainers there's a gradual drift that occurs that is hard to interpret without a power meter.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

i have more than several trainers at my disposal (so i'm not singling out any particular model) and all of them display this problem. If i keep a constant power (e.g. 250 W) then over time the speed increases by as much as 1 or 2 mph. If i keep the speed constant, power decreases by ~ 20+ watts. Keeping at a constant power my HR drifts upwards during a session (by as much as 15 b/min). Keeping speed constant it drifts a lot less (e.g., < 5 b/min).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

at the constant workload cadence will increase (if you don't change gear as speed has gone up). at the constant speed cadence won't alter.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Thus, without a power meter the variables are very confusing and it becomes impossible to interpret exactly what is happening.

Everyone who has been on this board for a while knows there is often substantial difference in the advice given. All riders on this board who want to find the truth for themselves need to do their own research, not wait for a study that may never materialize.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

often there is a lot of research, but whenever we point it out you still don't like it!

Find out the truth for yourselves!!!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

often, with an n=1 and no control or precise data, it becomes much easier to 'bend' the data the way you want to see it.

Ric

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by 2LAP

Also as far as I'm aware there are no UCI rulings on cranks of this type (I've not seen the cranks) so they could be used in competition. If they are effective, why are they not used in competition or training or touring or track sprinting more?

PC is not used in race because it's bulky. The price tag is horrible (US$690 !!) You should read about the cyclingnews.com review and PC web site.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by 2LAP
Most sports research has been done since 1970, therefore I am blindly following my own generation questioning traditional advice from other generations.

I use the Peter Keen Zones, used to produce a number of world champs (Boardman, McGregor, etc), is this approach not unique? Why is it so bad if it has proven successes and can be backed up by science? Obree and Anquetil were great riders, but their approach wasn't that extreme (even Chris Boardman had a bike designed for him ('Lotus Sport'😉).

What ended McGregor's cycling? answer : lower back pain
W hat condition is Boardsman's back in?
Instead of causing back pain and injury Anquetil's method
improves it, his video has the proof.
If Mc Gregor was to return to the track tomorrow, using
Anquetil's technique, she would be track pursuit champion and
free from all lower back pain . I can guarantee that.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by n crowley
What ended McGregor's cycling? answer : lower back pain
W hat condition is Boardsman's back in?
Instead of causing back pain and injury Anquetil's method
improves it, his video has the proof.
If Mc Gregor was to return to the track tomorrow, using
Anquetil's technique, she would be track pursuit champion and
free from all lower back pain . I can guarantee that.

Didn't Anquetil mask pain with drugs instead and die young? Wasn't that Jaques technique?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ricstern
Didn't Anquetil mask pain with drugs instead and die young? Wasn't that Jaques technique?

Anquetil died from CANCER, if Lance had his cancer back in the year that Anquetil died, would he have survived. The same treatment was not available in those days. It is true that
Anquetil took drugs ( they were not banned in those days) but
unlike today's riders, he was man enough to admit. Sure he
took drugs, but not for performance improvement, he was only
compensating for the night life that he led, when all other
riders were tucked up in their beds.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by n crowley
Anquetil died from CANCER, if Lance had his cancer back in the year that Anquetil died, would he have survived. The same treatment was not available in those days. It is true that
Anquetil took drugs ( they were not banned in those days) but
unlike today's riders, he was man enough to admit. Sure he
took drugs, but not for performance improvement, he was only
compensating for the night life that he led, when all other
riders were tucked up in their beds.

If they weren't used for a performance gain (!), why did he refuse to be tested after (not) breaking the Hour Record?

As i'm aware it's well known he took both amphetamines and steroids, both of which are ergogenic. Isn't a side effect of steroid abuse cancer?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ricstern
If they weren't used for a performance gain (!), why did he refuse to be tested after (not) breaking the Hour Record?

As i'm aware it's well known he took both amphetamines and steroids, both of which are ergogenic. Isn't a side effect of steroid abuse cancer?

These facts were not available in those days, riders took drugs
like candy. Remember, he set his first hour record after
drinking into the early hours in a night club. Of course he had
drugs in his bloodstream but if you could only experience
the continuous power that his technique can produce, you
would understand why he did not need drugs to boost his
performance.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by n crowley
These facts were not available in those days, riders took drugs
like candy. Remember, he set his first hour record after
drinking into the early hours in a night club. Of course he had
drugs in his bloodstream but if you could only experience
the continuous power that his technique can produce, you
would understand why he did not need drugs to boost his
performance.

The point to which i'm alluding is how do we know the "continuous power" that he produced wasn't because of the drugs he took, as opposed to his 'special' technique?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ricstern
The point to which i'm alluding is how do we know the "continuous power" that he produced wasn't because of the drugs he took, as opposed to his 'special' technique?

If it could be arranged to get Ms McGregor back to racing on the
track, she will supply the proof.
We can kill two birds with the one stone, elimination of back
pain and invincible time trialling or track pursuit power.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by n crowley
If it could be arranged to get Ms McGregor back to racing on the
track, she will supply the proof.
We can kill two birds with the one stone, elimination of back
pain and invincible time trialling or track pursuit power.

have you contacted her...?

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ricstern
have you contacted her...?

No because like you she would not believe.

However back pain victims have suffered enough, it is time to
end their torture. I intend to invite six of the worst "on the bike"
lower back pain victims to Dublin, Ireland and within a day they
could all be pedaling completely pain free. That invitation will
be done through Cycling Weekly magazine, the most serious
back pain victims have been forced out of the sport and are
not reachable on cycling forums.
I will be also be seeking through the wattage forum two
biomechanical medical/performance researchers to verify the
results and answers to the following questions.

The root cause and cure for "on the bike " lower back pain

How to eliminate the dead spot area

How to combine arm resistance and hip/leg power when riding in the saddle

The explanation for Anquetil's mysterious extra pedal power in
time trials.

How to prevent sliding forward on the saddle even when tilted
well downwards for a safer and more comfortable aerodynamic
position in time trials

How to reduce the workload on the knees

How to multiply the maximum advantages of the ROTOR cranks
by three.

I have never done anything like this before, it would not be
very professional, but it's the results that matter.

Maybe if it ever does take place you too could get your answers.

Originally posted by n crowley, i responded with >>

No because like you she would not believe.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

nothing like making an assumption on her behalf, eh!?

However back pain victims have suffered enough, it is time to
end their torture. I intend to invite six of the worst "on the bike"
lower back pain victims to Dublin, Ireland and within a day they
could all be pedaling completely pain free. That invitation will
be done through Cycling Weekly magazine, the most serious
back pain victims have been forced out of the sport and are
not reachable on cycling forums.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

i'm curious how you've come to the conclusion that cyclists who suffer with bad back pain, don't come on forums on the net, but read CW?

I will be also be seeking through the wattage forum two
biomechanical medical/performance researchers to verify the
results and answers to the following questions.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

have you appointed anyone yet? Have you advertised the position yet? (i've not seen anything on the wattage forum relating to this yet)

The root cause and cure for "on the bike " lower back pain

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

wouldn't it be different for different issues?

How to eliminate the dead spot area

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

isn't the answer to this: use the JA method of pedalling? sorry, couldn't resist that!!

How to combine arm resistance and hip/leg power when riding in the saddle

The explanation for Anquetil's mysterious extra pedal power in
time trials.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

surely, something that is a mystery is incomprehensible, and therefore no one would be able to offer an explanation

How to prevent sliding forward on the saddle even when tilted
well downwards for a safer and more comfortable aerodynamic
position in time trials

How to reduce the workload on the knees

How to multiply the maximum advantages of the ROTOR cranks
by three.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

do we even know that the Rotor cranks *give* an advantage. I thought the data was very equivocal.

I have never done anything like this before, it would not be
very professional, but it's the results that matter.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

good luck

ric

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ricstern
Originally posted by n crowley, i responded with >>

No because like you she would not believe.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

nothing like making an assumption on her behalf, eh!?

However back pain victims have suffered enough, it is time to
end their torture. I intend to invite six of the worst "on the bike"
lower back pain victims to Dublin, Ireland and within a day they
could all be pedaling completely pain free. That invitation will
be done through Cycling Weekly magazine, the most serious
back pain victims have been forced out of the sport and are
not reachable on cycling forums.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

i'm curious how you've come to the conclusion that cyclists who suffer with bad back pain, don't come on forums on the net, but read CW?

I will be also be seeking through the wattage forum two
biomechanical medical/performance researchers to verify the
results and answers to the following questions.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

have you appointed anyone yet? Have you advertised the position yet? (i've not seen anything on the wattage forum relating to this yet)

The root cause and cure for "on the bike " lower back pain

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

wouldn't it be different for different issues?

How to eliminate the dead spot area

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

isn't the answer to this: use the JA method of pedalling? sorry, couldn't resist that!!

How to combine arm resistance and hip/leg power when riding in the saddle

The explanation for Anquetil's mysterious extra pedal power in
time trials.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

surely, something that is a mystery is incomprehensible, and therefore no one would be able to offer an explanation

How to prevent sliding forward on the saddle even when tilted
well downwards for a safer and more comfortable aerodynamic
position in time trials

How to reduce the workload on the knees

How to multiply the maximum advantages of the ROTOR cranks
by three.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

do we even know that the Rotor cranks *give* an advantage. I thought the data was very equivocal.

I have never done anything like this before, it would not be
very professional, but it's the results that matter.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

good luck

ric

Riders who have been forced out of the sport have moved on
to something more suitable, golf , hill walking for example,
they are not likely to be logging in to cycling forums and many
cyclists do not waste time or maybe don't even have access
to the internet.
If you cannot understand how the rotor crank assists pedaling
it confirms what I have already said about the passing on
of traditional ways. The rotor system enables a rider to gain
extra pedaling time, let's say in the hour record where he is
limited to one hour of pedaling,by reducing the
dead spot area, a rider could gain well over two mins. of extra pedaling time, compared to a normal rider who has to
cope with the dead spot area. By completely eliminating it as the
combination of anquetil's style and ROTOR does, you can more
than double that advantage, gaining over six mins of extra pedaling time but you need to be fully fit to avail of these
advantages.
No, I have not mentioned this topic on the wattage forum but
as you say there was a bet at stake with Wayne Lim.
I could never accept that bet as Wayne brought Vo2 max into
it, that is more for you lot ( the coach), it has nothing to do
with pedaling technique.
Maybe a more suitable bet can be arranged, I would be prepared
to stake 10,000$ that all my facts are genuine.

Good Lord, Noel. Facts? What facts? You have not one shred of empirical data to back up your ideas (I will not even grant them the respect to deem them "theories"😉 yet you have the cojones to call them facts?!?! I have been reading this same tripe for years on various forums. Your diatribe has not changed in years and the only thing anyone can be sure of from you other than your inability to understand the common sense if individualistic physiology is the utter absence of verifiable data to back up your ideas.

Common sense dictates that what works for one person may not work for another. It also says that various causes of back pain do not have a single cure/remedy even towards teh specific end of enabling one's ability to cycle.

Come on, man. Either put up or shut up. It's about time you backed up your rants with something more than more rants.

-Rob Coapman