The Look/Polar system is available, see a different thread on this site:

weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=54198&start=675
``New powermeter rumours''

Quoting a posting from Tumppi:
``Our team have Polar power pedals in use. :thumbup: So if you need power meter which is easy to setup, light and very fast change to another bike, why wait for Garmin exustar pedals which are delayed or maybe cancelled totally. These Polar pedals really work.''

I found this thread because I noticed that several people were making it to our site from it. We will be coming out with a true 2nd generation pm before the end of the year (or so I have been promised) called iCranks. It will be a r/l crank arm based power meter integrated into the dual mode (so you can test/train regular cranks also if you wish) PowerCranks crank arms being done by an Australian company such that it will be possible to not only measure r/l power and technique but the measurement is included in a tool designed to actually improve technique and correct imbalances. I have written a little blurb that goes into why I think imbalances are an issue (most athletic trainers agree that imbalances increase risk of injury, regardless of the sport, and the greater the imbalance the greater the risk), how these new generation pm's will greatly improve detection of muscle imbalances, and also, if they also give pedal force information how this might be used to enhance effectiveness of training. While the article is directed towards the specifics of the iCranks the essence should apply to all second generation pm's that give similar data. The usual naysayers will, of course, come back with the "where is the proof" diatribe so they can continue to hold their biases (which are also unproven). Anyhow, it is my opinion, I try to support my ideas with reasoned argument in the piece, and you can make of it what you will. http://www.powercranks.com/icranks.html Have "fun".

Proof?

Where do we start.

Mashing is optimal: Coyle (1991) and many others.

Changing application of force around the pedal stroke is wrong. Any published Gimmickcrank study since Luttrel (2002) which has shown no increase in performance based measures.

_________________
Hamish Ferguson
Cycling Coach

I read through the posts. What I concluded is this:

1) There is plenty of evidence which shows that it is easier to pedal using big structurally efficient muscles than other smaller ones. This is why Powercranks, egg shaped chainrings and clever pedals do not make you faster.

2) The cyclist is a system, involving a pump (heart) gas exchange system (lungs) movement system (legs).
a) For aerobic efforts the limiting part of the system are the pump and gas exchange not the legs, since it's easy to produce more than 50% of max power using one leg. Similarly if you try and hand cycle and leg cycle you don't get any more work - otherwise rowing bikes would set speed records.
b) To train your system to produce more aerobic power you need to train the limiting factors. So if you want to make more aerobic power you need to use both legs to hit your heart and lungs to drive adaptation. Adaptation in the legs will largely look after themselves.
c) I didn't see this in the orginal thread, but in short duration anearobic efforts, are the leg muscles the limiting factor? Or are there other system biochemical and structural limitations, e.g. ATP synthesis and ability to hold onto the handlebars? My bet is that system factors are important here as well, as otherwise powerlifters would be winning sprint medals.

So what this comes back to is that specificity and loading the whole training system wins, unless there are gross issues which need to be addressed. And in my view for amateur athletes it's doubly important since I don't have 2 hours to train each leg individually when I could get the same work done in a bit over an hour using both legs.

Agree?

Yes.

_________________
Hamish Ferguson
Cycling Coach

Strength is not a limiting factor. A sprinter puts out nearly 20% less power for 10sec than their peak power so they can always apply more force to the pedals. Sustained power whether it is 10sec over 200m or 200-250 watts over 21 days in the Tour is what matters. This is why second generation power meters offer nothing special for fitness measurement over standard power meters. The research on where the power is applied in the pedal stroke has been done and we know that a natural pedal stroke, the one a kid uses when they first learn to ride a bike, is optimal and trying to change it by using gimmicks has never been shown to improve fitness.

_________________
Hamish Ferguson
Cycling Coach

the limiting factor also involves the skeletal muscle processes. Fat/carbs use by the muscle cells, treatment of metabolical wastes, muscle fiber composition..


c) I think yes, partly. What limits anaerobic power and capacity partly relates to the active muscles. Anaerobic training adaptations included, among other, an increase in energy substrate in the skeletal muscle (ATP, PCr, glycogen, creatine). An increase in quatity and activity of the enzyme responsible for the glucose breakdown and an increase in the capacity to produce high/higher blood lactate level during anaerobic efforts.

_________________
2013 rocky mountain vertex 29er
­Twitter
www.cyclingtrainingnuts.blogspot.ca