"Tim McNamara" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Phil Holman" piholmanc@yourservice wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 3, 5:46 am, wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 19:39:13 -0700, "Phil Holman"

Frank Day. His last posts here were after a scientific study
showed a statistically significant 1.5% gross efficiency
improvement. The experts here still wouldn't buy it.

No offense, but that sounds like 200 watts rising to 203 watts.

Well, the difference was in gross efficiency, not in power. Frank
Day calls them PowerCranks, not EfficiencyCranks. Phil may know
whether there has been a published RCT that shows an increase in
power.


I just checked their website and found another study of trained
cyclists that showed a 15.6% increase in VO2max and an 11.6% icrease
in max power.

My understanding- which may not be correct- is that VO2 max is
biologically determined and that training does not significantly
change
this.

I'll assume you are talking about a theoretical ceiling and not the
difference in the same athlete being in shape and not in shape.
The theoretical ceiling is biologically determined but what biologically
constitutes that ceiling is still up for discussion.


PowerCranks have always been marketed a bit too much like the Second
Coming for my tastes.

I thought you of all people could separate the science from the emotion.

Phil H