|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Data (was PowerCranks Study)
Here is a condensed preview of the numbers from the PC testing. The
study was conducted by Mark D. Luttrell, Dept of Health, Sport and Exercise Science, University of Kansas and Jeffrey A. Pottteiger, Dept of Physical Education, Health and Sports Studies, Miami University. The effects of 6 weeks of training with PCs was examined for 6 cyclists (+6 with regular cranks) to determine changes in V02 max, AT, HR, V0, and RER during a 1 hour submaximal ride (~69% V02 max). Here are the numbers for Heartrate (HR) and Gross Efficiency (GE) before and after training. Time (minutes) PC Group 15 30 45 60 HR Pre 154 155 156 157 Post 141 140 141 141 GE (%)Pre 21.5 21.3 21.6 21.5 Post 23.1 23.0 23.6 23.9 Control Group HR Pre 166 165 166 163 Post 159 159 159 160 GE (%) Pre 21.3 20.8 20.8 21.2 Post 21.8 21.5 21.3 21.0 Significant is the 2% increase in Gross Efficiency of the PC group. Phil Holman |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Data (was PowerCranks Study)
As an athlete (swimming) who has somewhat latched onto recreational
cycling, I'd like to know this: what about the effects of cross training six other cyclists and measuring these changes? I'm sure 6 weeks of swimming/free dive training would increase VO2 max, HR, VO, and many other factors a SIGNIFICANT amount BETTER than powercranks. -Mike (VO2 max currently ~55, max ~57, age 19) --On Monday, October 6, 2003 10:51 PM +0000 Phil Holman wrote: Here is a condensed preview of the numbers from the PC testing. The study was conducted by Mark D. Luttrell, Dept of Health, Sport and Exercise Science, University of Kansas and Jeffrey A. Pottteiger, Dept of Physical Education, Health and Sports Studies, Miami University. The effects of 6 weeks of training with PCs was examined for 6 cyclists (+6 with regular cranks) to determine changes in V02 max, AT, HR, V0, and RER during a 1 hour submaximal ride (~69% V02 max). Here are the numbers for Heartrate (HR) and Gross Efficiency (GE) before and after training. Time (minutes) PC Group 15 30 45 60 HR Pre 154 155 156 157 Post 141 140 141 141 GE (%)Pre 21.5 21.3 21.6 21.5 Post 23.1 23.0 23.6 23.9 Control Group HR Pre 166 165 166 163 Post 159 159 159 160 GE (%) Pre 21.3 20.8 20.8 21.2 Post 21.8 21.5 21.3 21.0 Significant is the 2% increase in Gross Efficiency of the PC group. Phil Holman |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Data (was PowerCranks Study)
"Phil Holman" wrote in message nk.net...
Here is a condensed preview of the numbers from the PC testing. ... My immediate question is: Why did the control group have higher hear rates and lower efficiencies (however that was calculated) than the PC group at the beginning of the test? Even if the PC group showed greater improvement, it would seem that the two groups were not evenly matched to begin with. Individuals in the PC group may have responded to whatever training program was implemented better than the control group, with or without any equipment differences. I would like to see some definitive results, the PC seem like an interesting training tool (but too expensive for me). -David |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Data (was PowerCranks Study)
"David Mackintosh" wrote in message m... "Phil Holman" wrote in message nk.net... Here is a condensed preview of the numbers from the PC testing. ... My immediate question is: Why did the control group have higher hear rates and lower efficiencies (however that was calculated) than the PC group at the beginning of the test? Even if the PC group showed greater improvement, it would seem that the two groups were not evenly matched to begin with. Individuals in the PC group may have responded to whatever training program was implemented better than the control group, with or without any equipment differences. I would like to see some definitive results, the PC seem like an interesting training tool (but too expensive for me). I can email the entire research article if you like. I do not see any significance in the differences between HR and GE in the pre-training test. It would be impossible to predict any bias from dividing the 12 athletes into 2 groups assuming these were selected prior to the determination of the pre-training data. Average scatter was around +/- 10 bmp for HR and +/- 2.0 for GE. Phil Holman |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Data (was PowerCranks Study)
Phil Holman wrote:
Here is a condensed preview of the numbers from the PC testing. The study was conducted by Mark D. Luttrell, Dept of Health, Sport and Exercise Science, University of Kansas and Jeffrey A. Pottteiger, Dept of Physical Education, Health and Sports Studies, Miami University. The effects of 6 weeks of training with PCs was examined for 6 cyclists (+6 with regular cranks) to determine changes in V02 max, AT, HR, V0, and RER during a 1 hour submaximal ride (~69% V02 max). Here are the numbers for Heartrate (HR) and Gross Efficiency (GE) before and after training. Time (minutes) PC Group 15 30 45 60 HR Pre 154 155 156 157 Post 141 140 141 141 GE (%)Pre 21.5 21.3 21.6 21.5 Post 23.1 23.0 23.6 23.9 Control Group HR Pre 166 165 166 163 Post 159 159 159 160 GE (%) Pre 21.3 20.8 20.8 21.2 Post 21.8 21.5 21.3 21.0 Significant is the 2% increase in Gross Efficiency of the PC group. Phil Holman What is gross efficiency? How is it measured? From the individual test reports I've read about PC (admittedly anecdotal, but then a test group of 6 is barely less so), it took 3 months of training with them to see major improvements. 6 weeks seems a bit short. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Data (was PowerCranks Study)
trg wrote:
Phil Holman wrote: Significant is the 2% increase in Gross Efficiency of the PC group. What is gross efficiency? How is it measured? From: http://www.bsn.com/Cycling/articles/cadence.html "[...] exercise efficiency has several precise definitions that are summarized in Gaesser and Brooks (1975). They defined and compared four types of efficiency measures with the goal of identifying the one that best represented human muscular efficiency. "These efficiency measures were 1 ) gross efficiency, the ratio of the work accomplished to energy expended, that is, the effectiveness of converting chemical energy into mechanical work; 2) net efficiency, the ratio of the work accomplished to the energy expended above that during rest, that is, the cost of resting metabolism is subtracted from the denominator in the computation; 3) work efficiency, the ratio of the work accomplished to the energy expended above that during cycling with no load, calculated by subtracting from the denominator the cost of moving the legs plus the resting metabolism, and 4) delta efficiency - the ratio of the change in the power output to the change in the energy expended at each power output." As long as you can eat more food while riding, efficiency isn't really the most important limiter to performance. That's why I'm more interested in whether anything else showed a significant difference. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Science Proves Mountain Biking Is More Harmful Than Hiking | Stephen Baker | Mountain Biking | 18 | July 16th 04 04:28 AM |
Powercranks Study Published | Phil Holman | Racing | 0 | December 28th 03 05:12 PM |
Data (was PowerCranks Study) | Phil Holman | Racing | 102 | October 21st 03 12:21 AM |
PowerCranks Study | Phil Holman | Techniques | 40 | October 8th 03 12:24 AM |
PowerCranks Study | Phil Holman | Racing | 3 | October 4th 03 07:54 AM |