Rick wrote:Unbiased readers can easily review the evolution of this thread and decide who is ignorant and insulting.
+1000Though I think you and I'd disagree on who's been ignorant and insulting
Moderator: Moderator Team
Rick wrote:Sorry, but I think I am finished discussing this.
I have produced numerous references that directly discredit and contradict your assertions, and despote my numerous requests you produce only one study that does not support your assertions except through your own convoluted logic.
Numerous references? Two quote from assumptions of authors in a book? Outstanding. When you have some credible assertion maybe you'll actually have a reason for believing your bias. As yet you've got nothing, no logical physiological basis to explain why pedal asymmetry, when "corrected", will yield more power, no study to suggest that this can be effectively done.
You cannot explain the simple questions I have posed which perhaps lead me to think you don't actual know why you have this bias.
.....Come up with actual REASONS why you assert why correcting pedal asymmetry is a boost for power and then your arguements will have real weight.
amaferanga wrote:I guess the question is what do you actually do with the information if it does turn out you have a 60/40, 70/30 or whatever split? And surely if you are at the extreme with regards imbalance then you wouldn't need a power meter to tell you that?
Rick wrote:I ask WHY you are so confident in your assertions (rchung was also a big asserter of this)
I produce two studies that directly contradict you ONLY BECAUSE IT WAS EASY TO FIND THEM WITHIN ABOUT 5 MINUTES OF GOOGLING!
Yet you make your assertions and do not produce ANY study that supports it. You *infer* that it supports you through your own logic, but frankly I just think your logic is weak.
Huh ?!?!? My only "bias" is to be open-minded on the subject. Numerous times now I have asked you for a study that supports your claims, and all I get is more of this pompous bluster.
Here is EXACTLY how balancing power out put can increase power output:
1 leg - 50%
If I now start using the other leg: 100%
That is a 100% increase !
Now then: Using THE STUDY YOU CITED: I will give a theory as to why knowing both sides power is valuable. Note that I am not claiming this is true. I am not an expert. I just say his seems plausible.
Although the kicking dominant leg contributed significantly greater average crank power than the non-dominant leg for the subject sample, the non-dominant leg contributed significantly greater average positive power and average negative power than the dominant leg.
So, if a leg is producing negative power, the body is already producing that power. It doesn't require any increase in the aerobic power of the body to stop producing negative power. But it might require KNOWING about that negative power.
Let's say a single-sided power meter is reading 100 Watts. But the left leg is producing 5 watts negative. So the body was really producing 105 Watts. Now correct the asymmetry, and the 105 watts all becomes useful watts.
JUST A THEORY !!!!....If there is EVIDENCE to the contrary, I will believe it.
That means, unless there is a huge imbalance the "weaker" leg is already capable of producing power that would allow it to bring it to a 50/50 balance. But it doesn't. See earlier comments about exceeding the limits of the system. This is all rather simple.
Rick said:
Here is EXACTLY how balancing power out put can increase power output:
1 leg - 50%
If I now start using the other leg: 100%
That is a 100% increase !
You don't have a belief? Really. Yet you are convinced that the "flimsy data" is incorrect. But you don't know why.
Rick wrote:...and you ignore my point that using my thought-experiment and the the study that rchung provided, the body is already producing the 105 watts. No increase in aerobic capacity would be needed. All one would need to do eliminate (correct) the 5 inefficient watts (due to the 5 watts of negative power being produced by the 'inefficient' leg) into 5 watts of usefil power.
5 watts is not "large". But figure how much time that would save in a 20 minute effort. Maybe it is only 1 watt. I don't know. But you can fix it if you don't know about it.
In fact, this would work even if there is no "asymmetry". Even if both legs are equally producing negative power, (negative power being a small component of force that 'fight' crank rotation in some part of he pedal stoke) then eliminating the negative power gives a boost (however small) to the effective power.
BUT YOU CAN'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT THE NEGATIVE POWER UNLESS YOU CAN DETECT AND MEASURE IT WITH A BILATERAL FORCE MONITOR SYSTEM.
So to summarize:
1. You have no data that supports your contentions (or at least you refuse to reveal it for whatever odd reasons you may have) .
2. At least two very well known cycling 'experts' directly contradict your assertions. They were very easy to google-up. It was not some big research project.
3. You ignore reasoning that shows a bilateral power monitor would be valuable even from the data that rchung provided and you think is valid.
So this all really has gone on to the point of absolutely ludicrous. I am really just dumbfounded and laughing that you seem to have taken this so personally.
I have no ill will whatsoever. I have no idea why you would keep twisting my arguments abnd refuse to provide some studies that support your claims. If it makes you feel better, I will just say (once again) you are right and I am wrong.
This convinces me you have not bothered to reread (and understand)the thread. In context, my statement was a facetious response to rchung's challenge to explain EXACTLY how an bilateral power monitor could be useful. So I quickly made up a straw-man example of how it COULD be useful. I don't BELIEVE it is true. I even stated myself that it was unrealistic and overly simplistic. What I wanted was some real data to show that it is false, partially true, or whatever. But instead of providing any data that would counter it, rchung started with the personal insults.
It occurs to me that maybe your native language isn't English so you are misinterpreting a lot of what I am trying to say ?
CoachFergie wrote:
Appeals to authority, ad hominem attacks and confirmation bias.
Well played Rick.
Rick wrote:When you were adding information to the thread, I was actually reading it and considered you credible.