Powercranks - yes or no?

[devinci]

the pros arent good exemple for us, mere mortal

[Tapeworm]

No offence Magellan. But just to check-in my resume, a few years if triathlon, all half ironmans, 3 years of "pure" cycling managing to get a few good results (most prestigious was 4th in the state champs TTT), currently training for another half ironman and a 24hr mtb race.

I will clarify my comment about cross training. Even for multisport athletes if cross training yielded such a boon then triathletes would be able to swim as well as elite swimmers, ride as well as elite cyclists and run as fast as elite runners given their relative training volume. But this is not the case. Elite triathletes are very good in all 3 disciplines but there is no way they would rank against a "pure discipline" elite. Which is why the cross training does not "work".

Now you mentioned pros in the offseason. This is important to note. It's the off season. Some run, swim, ski, hike, sit around, drink beer (others continue to ride and ride HARD. Two world champs and a runner-up come to mind). As mentioned though these are pros and their training and racing have little relevance to what we do in training as amateurs.


Your comparison of swimming could be compared to various forms of cycling (road, track, TT, mtb). Whilst there are differences by and large the biomechanics are the same. Whilst elite swimmers may race in different disciplines they also log more kms in the pool a day than we would in a week.

There may be minor benefits gained by adding more total training time overall but the benefits would not be as good as if you added that time to the chosen discipline.

A rough rule of thumb in cross training would be this:-
X hours training discipline A = E fitness
X hours training A and Y hours training discipline B = E+ fitness
X hours training A and Y hours training A = E++
Y hours training A and Y hours training B = E-

[Magellan3000]

Magnificent point! So why cite research on elite cyclists? Better examples would be research on the transition from mere mortals to pros.

the pros arent good exemple for us, mere mortal

[Magellan3000]

re: "There may be minor benefits gained by adding more total training time overall but the benefits would not be as good as if you added that time to the chosen discipline.";
(1) there is a point you are missing that is peculiar to triathlon and duathlon. Both include running, which causes a disproportionate amount of dammage (and consequent required recovery) for a given amount of training. My own direct experience is that one can throw together some pretty good running times by developing a massive aerobic engine (through swimming and cycling) and pathetically little running... with NONE of the pounding. Mary Decker Slaney in her later years dropped her running miles, substituting with massive amounts of water running, because the tradeoff was worth it... in terms of absolute performance. That's not a 'minor' benefit.
(2) i'm talking about substituting training time... not merely adding to it.

P.S.: I'm still trying to get my head around your equations below...

No offence Magellan. But just to check-in my resume, a few years if triathlon, all half ironmans, 3 years of "pure" cycling managing to get a few good results (most prestigious was 4th in the state champs TTT), currently training for another half ironman and a 24hr mtb race.

I will clarify my comment about cross training. Even for multisport athletes if cross training yielded such a boon then triathletes would be able to swim as well as elite swimmers, ride as well as elite cyclists and run as fast as elite runners given their relative training volume. But this is not the case. Elite triathletes are very good in all 3 disciplines but there is no way they would rank against a "pure discipline" elite. Which is why the cross training does not "work".

Now you mentioned pros in the offseason. This is important to note. It's the off season. Some run, swim, ski, hike, sit around, drink beer (others continue to ride and ride HARD. Two world champs and a runner-up come to mind). As mentioned though these are pros and their training and racing have little relevance to what we do in training as amateurs.


Your comparison of swimming could be compared to various forms of cycling (road, track, TT, mtb). Whilst there are differences by and large the biomechanics are the same. Whilst elite swimmers may race in different disciplines they also log more kms in the pool a day than we would in a week.

There may be minor benefits gained by adding more total training time overall but the benefits would not be as good as if you added that time to the chosen discipline.

A rough rule of thumb in cross training would be this:-
X hours training discipline A = E fitness
X hours training A and Y hours training discipline B = E+ fitness
X hours training A and Y hours training A = E++
Y hours training A and Y hours training B = E-

[devinci]

Magnificent point! So why cite research on elite cyclists? Better examples would be research on the transition from mere mortals to pros.

the pros arent good exemple for us, mere mortal

please, learn the distinction between pro and elite cyclists, I'd classify myself near the later, and I am no way a pro rider.

[Tapeworm]

Whilst running does have a higher impact which limits the amount of absolute time one can spend running this is still usually less time than theoretically possible and that adapting to, or rather failure to adapt to, that kind of damage is a limiter of running performance. Hence my quip about a 12 week marathon plan, even if you are a runner you haven't even started in terms of marathon training.

Once again a pro may opt for additional training which is non-impact. And if I were logging a 100kms a week or more I would agree that it is a viable option. Note though the example of water running, ie: keeping things as specific as possible.

[Magellan3000]

We're close to agreement now (though you might not realize it):

*** Cycling with PowerCranks is like simultaneously doing cycling and water running. It identical to the former and highly specific to the later, all at once. As such, it is very time-efficient way for cyclist-runner's to spend their limited training hours. ***

Whilst running does have a higher impact which limits the amount of absolute time one can spend running this is still usually less time than theoretically possible and that adapting to, or rather failure to adapt to, that kind of damage is a limiter of running performance. Hence my quip about a 12 week marathon plan, even if you are a runner you haven't even started in terms of marathon training.

Once again a pro may opt for additional training which is non-impact. And if I were logging a 100kms a week or more I would agree that it is a viable option. Note though the example of water running, ie: keeping things as specific as possible.

[Tapeworm]

We're close to agreement now (though you might not realize it):

*** Cycling with PowerCranks is like simultaneously doing cycling and water running. It identical to the former and highly specific to the later, all at once. As such, it is very time-efficient way for cyclist-runner's to spend their limited training hours. ***

Unfortunately you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Whilst it may aid both there will be aspects (vital ones) that you are missing out on. I refer to my above formulae, you may improve on both running and cycling you wouldn't improve as much as doing both activities separately. Even if you had an hour it would be better to do 30mins on the bike at FTP and then a 30min run than 1hr on powercranks.

[Magellan3000]

Prove it with a placebo-controlled, double-blind, peer-reviewed study. Pick any pair of endurance sports you'd care to select amongst: cross-country skiing | running | cycling | inline skating | rowing | speed-skating | <other>. Show me the research! Show me the research! Show me the research! If you can find 'proof' fitting that criteria, I will send you $100. If you fail, you send me $1. To limit my chance of losing my money, I offer the following conditions:
(1) You, anyone you know, anyone they know, AND anyone they know are allowed to find this mythical study. In other words, you and up to 7 billion of your closet frieds can help.
(2) You (and your team) have a limited time to find this mythical study: 6 months.

Deal?

We're close to agreement now (though you might not realize it):

*** Cycling with PowerCranks is like simultaneously doing cycling and water running. It identical to the former and highly specific to the later, all at once. As such, it is very time-efficient way for cyclist-runner's to spend their limited training hours. ***

Unfortunately you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Whilst it may aid both there will be aspects (vital ones) that you are missing out on. I refer to my above formulae, you may improve on both running and cycling you wouldn't improve as much as doing both activities separately. Even if you had an hour it would be better to do 30mins on the bike at FTP and then a 30min run than 1hr on powercranks.

[Tapeworm]

Some light reading for you. Relevant studies mentioned in the papers. Yet to see the study which has usurped the principal of specificity. Some have come close, but even then their gains are not immediately evident.

http://www.sportsci.org/news/traingain/cross.html

http://physiotherapy.curtin.edu.au/reso ... ncycle.cfm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12741870

[KWalker]

DeVinci- Please explain why you are an elite cyclist and what large top tier domestic events you have won to obtain such status. Maybe its only like this in the states in Europe but the term elite implies that a rider is the level right below a domestic pro and it usually comes down to what size team they're on and what budget it has.

[Tapeworm]

KWalker, FWIW in Australia any male racing under the age of 35 is classed as "elite". "Amateur" is not an official title but could apply to those whom may participate in various sportif events but not in any UCI sanctioned races.

[Magellan3000]

Based upon your first reference, your $1 is in grave risk. One the other hand, maybe I owe you something for the laughter this first reference provokes.
"<the 1978 study> examined the effects of either arm training only, or leg training only on the retention of training effects originally induced by leg exercise (cycling)" <=Pure genius-level experiment design! They may as well have...
"examined the effects of playing chess only, or leg training only on the retention of training effects originally induced by leg exercise (cycling)"

Perhaps unsurprisingly, their definition of cross-training is, uh, unorthodox: "cross-training (that is, training another body part from that which is used in the athletes primary activity or event)..." Can there be anyone else on Earth who uses that as a definition of cross-training?

The first reference then notes the conclusions of the 1993 study supporting "... the use of cross-training as an alternative to increasing performance", but opines that it is difficult to draw that conclusion based upon that study's data (I agree). Yet your reference then asserts "... the principles of specificity of training are likely to have greater significance" and "Both scientific evidence and anecdotal reports overwhelmingly indicate that the best way... " but makes no attempt to present or cite such evidence.

Which brings up an important question. What is easier: (1) becoming an "elite" cyclist in Australia or (2) getting past peer-review at the Sports Science Institute of South Africa?

On to the next reference...

Some light reading for you. Relevant studies mentioned in the papers. Yet to see the study which has usurped the principal of specificity. Some have come close, but even then their gains are not immediately evident.

http://www.sportsci.org/news/traingain/cross.html

http://physiotherapy.curtin.edu.au/reso ... ncycle.cfm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12741870

[Rick]

Powercranks - yes or no?

no.

[Tapeworm]

...Yet your reference then asserts "... the principles of specificity of training are likely to have greater significance" and "Both scientific evidence and anecdotal reports overwhelmingly indicate that the best way... " but makes no attempt to present or cite such evidence.

Sometime the evidence is self-evident.

I don't need the principal of specificity proved behind reasonable doubt simply because it is played out on very large scales on a daily basis. The trick is to prove that there are other ways to achieve the same result. The answer to date has been no. Yes the research is somewhat lacking but there could be a reason for this ie: training said activity gets you better in that activity is kinda hard to argue, and really, why would you want to?

So it's not to me to disprove crosstraining rather for you to prove WHY it works (or doesn't) as if it were self evident that crosstraining works then more cyclists would be running marathons and vice versa.

Aside from injury, rehab, posterial correction etc I have seen no evidence that cross training is anything other than the usual "fitness industy" mumbo jumbo. Right up there with "core workouts", and "protein shakes".

Simplicity and specificity should be embraced on a more regular basis.