CycleBanter.com - View Single Post

**[email protected]**

On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 10:22:45 -0000, wrote:

On Jun 3, 6:42 am, wrote:

Am I right in thinking that there was an implied assumption that no
placebo effect encouraged the PowerCrank group to train harder with
their new toy for weeks than the other group, which used the same old
equipment?

In the study, in-lab training time was equal between the PowerCranks
and control group (1 hr per day, 3 days per week, 6 weeks of
training). I guess you have to assume that the subjects weren't
spending their unobserved free time doing extra workouts in an effort
to screw with the results.

Dear Robert,

Good grief!

They spent three hours a week training in a lab? For six whole weeks?
A staggering eighteen hours of pedaling in 42 days?

Thanks for the details--now I'm wondering what happened during the
other 990 hours of that 42-day span, 98.2% of their time. (I'd spend
twice as long on my daily ride in the same period.)

And I'm still wondering what happened during those 18 hours spread out
over 42 days. If we assume that the PowerCrank group did indeed show a
small but definite physiological improvement, was it due to the extra
muscles being recruited, or was it due to their 18 hours of training
being more intense due to the placebo or new-toy effect that the other
group lacked?

I seem to recall a number of posts, from both sides, that claim that
it takes a while just to learn how to pedal comfortably with
PowerCranks. Does anyone know whether the test group trained on
PowerCranks until they felt comfortable and then spent 18 hours in the
actual comparison test? Or did they come into the test cold and learn
during the testing?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel