PowerCranks Study

wrote in message
...
Phil Holman writes:

This sounds more like a book promotion than a report on the cranks.
Barkers at circus sideshows show more than this lead-on. How can
you repeat such jive? By the way, remind me of the principal
behind PC's. Are these the cranks that do not come around by
themselves and require pulling up to make them remain synchronous
(180 degrees apart)?

Yes, that's correct Jobst. Reading between the lines of the
newsletter, it looks like the study will reveal that training with
the cranks will increase power output by 'x' amount. This might be
a
little more newsworthy than the umpteenth thread on shimmy but
that's just my opinion. We'll just have to wait and see.

There is no doubt that adding the effect of lifting (actually pulling
back, lifting and pushing forward over the top will impart more power
to cranks, however, it will not produce more power from the rider for
a given aerobic level.

We've gone over this before. The athletes who typically display the
highest V02 max are those who utilize the most muscle mass (e.g.
X-Country Skiers).

Quite to the contrary. Engaging more muscles
in propelling the bicycle burdens the heart and lungs with the
overhead of more muscles rather than using the principal ones that are
naturally used. If this were not so, foot plus hand cranks would
produce a greater speed in TT's, flat and hill climbs, but they don't.

It is my understanding that the lungs are not the constraint given their
overcapacity in normal athletes. If they were, we would see venous blood
desaturation in all athletes at and above their aerobic limit. The
constraint is not just pumping capacity of the heart either. There is
separation in performance between athletes with identical cardiac
output. There are plenty of sports physiology references out there
raining knowledge soup. Wearing one's soup bowl as a rain bonnet will do
nothing but perpetuate an empty place holder for knowledge.
As for hand and foot cranking, I've seen a number of these devices and
it's probably the design constraints and unwieldy operation of such
contraptions outweighing any power gains. I've also seen studies
demonstrating the opposite for durations exceeding just anaerobic
considerations.


Anyone who has not trained with these cranks cannot ride with them,
the requirement to keep positive forward torque on both cranks
throughout rotation is difficult to accomplish. I'm sure that Lance
Armstrong could not ride rollers with these at the bicycle show,
something no bicycle racer I saw at InterBike 2002 do. If these
cranks did what they claim to do, we wouldn't see riders dominate
in races against PowerCrank devotees.

I gained 1 mph in TT speed. This will not necessarily make one a winner
of anything.
The highest ranked cyclist using them is Paolo Bettini - UCI ranked 3rd
in Jan 2003.


Let's not overlook that with conventional cranks, the feet an legs are
balanced and that it take no effort to rotate the cranks forward,
clipped in and with non chain. With Power Cranks, this takes
considerable effort, the feet not balancing each other.
The limit of climbing hills or flat TT depends on aerobic capacity.
That is what good bicycle racers have that others don't.

I totally agree and the limiting factor in aerobic capacity is the
ability of the muscles to utilize oxygen. The report should reveal what
aerobic gains were made.

Phil Holman