Bitey!!!
I wasn’t flogging a dead horse, I was hoping Joe would bite and come back for more posting.
People who lie about engineering, and especially their professional abilities and credentials really piss me off.
The power of McGill Cycling, demonstrated yet again. Begone, cycling quacks of the earth!
1 Like
But seriously, LPP 2016
RIP LPP?
You guys really crack me up!!! I’m decide to take a vacation to faithfully work on kicking pedal pushers butts at my spritely way over the hill age and I’m missed already! Well I’m totally glad to be back! He, he….
A very serious note to Jason L….My engineering abilities and credentials in the engineering field are proven, solid and beyond reproach. Absolutely no question about that! The fact that I have coached successfully multiple sports at high school, club, university and national level is also a fact. The fact that for years I have been teaching indoor cycling and privately coached road cycling when requested is also a fact. So having laid that one to rest, because I think that personal attacks are a bit out of order and unnecessary here, I will be delighted to join the conversation again. I have only one request of all of you…Let’s keep a positive and productive tone so that we all can learn from each other’s comments and experiences. That is all I ask….Cheers to all!
Power data facts from the Pro that is experimenting with the use of LPP…
Technique leads to fresher legs with the same power output during long tempo rides. He actually was able to produce 271 watts of normalized power across a challenging and varied terrain segment with historical against LPP wattage data compared. Preliminary feedback…LPP is very useful to him in descents, flats, rolling terrain and low/moderate grade efforts, where in order to attack, his power level using the standard technique was producing a saw tooth waveform (ei: high power output followed by decline in power when muscles were exhausted, and again high power output…throughout the effort). LPP led to the same average power without the exhaustion of the QUADs, having them rested and ready for high power wattage efforts. Definitively a good thing for him and he feels that he should get better at applying it as he becomes more proficient using it.
He finds that LPP has a limitation when required to produce very high power wattage…He needs to push down on those pedals when the attack requires very high wattage. Absolutely no question about that in his mind…That fact was also very helpful for me to understand the limitation of its use in general.….He is purposely using LPP as a strategic technique to maintain his required average wattage targets while saving his QUADs for very high power attack efforts.
Please bear in mind that this is initial Pro level data. More of it needs to gotten during a variety of circumstances in order to confirm efficacy at that level….Hence, more of it will be coming to us as he continues using the technique. I will pass it forward as I get the information. Cheers to all and have a great weekend!…Joe
Cheers to all…Joe
Never give up Joe I still believe in your cause!
omg yes
Thanks so much guys! I really appreciate that! And even though deep inside I knew that this LPP road was going to be a rough one to take, it had to be taken. I’m glad to be back doing our information interchange. Cheers to all and let’s keep the science going!
Joe,
If your engineering abilities and credentials are proven/solid/beyond reproach, would you be so kind as to post a copy of any of your diplomas from universities with accredited engineering degrees and or proofs of your membership in any professional order of engineers?
Because frankly, you’re not really winning me over with the voracity of your technical argument.
FYI, I’ve got a couple of engineering degrees under my belt. So do various other team members/alumni. Be careful who you bullshit around here.
Hell you could even win me over by doing an incredibly simple hand calculation of how your stroke uses the leg’s inertia to provide additional power or to generate power more efficiently. Should be a piece of cake for an engineer of your supposed stature. You are the Joe Villela from SPADA Innovations aren’t you? Multiple patents, worked for some high profile companies? Right?
Here, someone else already even did a dirt simple model for you, you just need to plug the values:
http://www.raeng.org.uk/education/diploma/maths/pdf/exemplars_engineering/9_cycling.pdf
I’m waiting. Come on, you must have done some of this in those couple of years of “detailed analysis”.
[quote=Jason_L] would you be so kind as to post a copy of any of your diplomas from universities with accredited engineering degrees […] you’re not really winning me over with the voracity of your technical argument
[/quote]
i have a degree in linguistics and it lets me do things like this:
wait that wasn’t very helpful
I meant veracity, give me a break, it was super late at night. =P
Jason L,
Wow! You are tacking this thing too personal…Don’t know why? Like I said before, I’m not done dealing with personal attacks. Not conductive to anything good. If you like the way you pedal, by all means keep doing it!!! Those that are using LPP are recognizing the benefits of the technique and I will continue working on it and having others work on it too so that more knowledge is acquired of it….Have a nice day!
Also and with all due respect…
I’m committed to LPP, will continue using it, will continue having others try and give me constructive feedback about it and if I have to stumble, fall short, get criticized because I had the courage to explore something different, I will do it because I truly believe in it……Cheers
Gentlemen,
All previous data, suppositions, studies or anything else aside, I urge you to please open your minds to new possibilities and give them a fair opportunity. I had one other instance in my past where all the data available at the time went squarely against the tech innovation I was dealing with yet the innovation was ultimately found to be rock solid. That experience showed me that there are times when dealing with new processes, you have to work real hard to prove their utilization and if they do work, efforts are made to explain why this is the case.
To base the soundness of a new process on previous data or analysis can be misleading because the variables involved in the new process may behave in such a way as to make what was not possible then to be possible now. Sometimes variable changes can be very subtle too.
There is no doubt in my mind that LPP has been very effective for me and other cyclists that have been using it for quite a while. No amount of opposing technical analysis can contradict the way my legs feel and the efficiency derive from using LPP. Now we have a pro experimenting with it and giving positive useful preliminary feedback. Wouldn’t it be nice to find that there is another way of pedaling. At the end of the day, pedaling is a matter of choice…I choose LPP.
OK, sure. There might be some hidden third categorical variable that makes previous research correct, but also allows for your technique to be effective (I think that’s what you were saying). There’s no reason to assume this, but hey, that’s where some neat discoveries have been made. But, for the most part, we’ve been most critical of your technique not because of previous results claiming it shouldn’t be effective, but based on your lack of results. No amount of qualitative evidence from uncontrolled anecdotes is going to convince me (i.e. “I know how my legs feel”, etc.).
Rather, it’ll take some quantitative analyses from (at least) three groups; those that used LPP for some reasonable period, those that used some reasonable alternative training programme for the same period, and a baseline group that didn’t receive training. I think power tests are a good metric – I’m not a fan of distance or speed since these things are more easily influenced by outside variables (i.e. wind, earthquakes, etc.). At the end of the day, the scientific method is a choice…I choose baking soda & vinegar volcanoes (possibly potato batteries).
[quote=joevilella]Jason L,
Wow! You are tacking this thing too personal…Don’t know why? Like I said before, I’m not done dealing with personal attacks. Not conductive to anything good. If you like the way you pedal, by all means keep doing it!!! Those that are using LPP are recognizing the benefits of the technique and I will continue working on it and having others work on it too so that more knowledge is acquired of it….Have a nice day![/quote]
Joe I am not taking this personally, rather I’m taking it as an affront professionally.
As an engineer and something of a scientist, I have a huge pet peeve about what is largely an internet trend of bartering terms like science and engineering like cheap coinage to lend credibility to an argument without using methodologies those disciplines entail.
Both engineering and science rely on specific methodologies and most importantly, on verifiable data. As an engineer you should know this.
Trying to push your idea, with a complete absence of data and the attempt to lend (potentially) false credibility to your idea by repeating over and over again that you are an engineering expert is basically professionally disgusting. Especially if you are who I think you are.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone type so many words for such little technical substance as you have in this thread, and I’ve (rather embarrassingly I might add) read rather vast quantities of abysmally argued shlock on the internet.
Justin,
I think it is absolutely critical that something like spin scan is used because to prove something like LPP works, you absolutely need to show what the distribution of power through angular position is.
For eg. If LPP ends up looking just like a conventionally well adjusted pedal stroke despite all of the bloviation about new techniques, there is absolutely nothing behind it.
^^^QFT!
Jason,
Here is my deeply ingrained and heartfelt response to this point that you are bringing up. And I will say that I’m as immutable as a rock when it comes to this reply.
How a person choses to advance a cause is truly up to his or her conscience and to pass judgment over it without being privy to all the work, risks, motives, etc, etc, etc that the person has undertaken is simply not right. Furthermore, I truly feel that it is unfair to label right or wrong anybody that is trying to advance a new method based on a pre-conceived protocol that advances professional elitism. What is the message to people with lesser resources, degrees, expertise or technical achievements. That they don’t have the right to advance concepts because the professional community is going to destroy them? That they are going to be belittled and ridiculed because they don’t have the right achievements or qualifications?
I really pity this world if we have come to that! Steve Jobs and many others like him wouldn’t have had a chance! Let’s go ahead and dump our Macs because Jobs didn’t have a degree in anything and was just an electronics hobbyist! And what the heck of a right did the pedal pushing Wright brothers had inventing a flying machine for crying out loud! Who reviewed their data before they took off at Kitty Hawk! We really don’t have the right to be flying until an aero engineer figures out how it’s done and the data is peer reviewed! Get my drift! Also, I truly hope that at any given time, a regular cyclist out there with whatever job he has, technical or not, is given the opportunity to improve the sport without being roasted!
I have spent over two years using the reasonable means at my disposal, looking very closely at this innovative pedaling process. I have used all my engineering and non-engineering common sense to make sure it was something I could stand behind and not a fluke. I have enough personal empirical data as well as actual usage experience input from people that have used it, including engineers with many years of cycling on their legs to be comfortable with its behavior. I know enough about the technique to convey its proficiency to anybody that is interested. Now I wanted to take it to the next step, start having more people use it, get plenty of power data from it from a variety of sources. I know how it behaves under normal conditions, I wanted to be able to explore the edges of its envelope. No can’t do! Not enough open minds, interest or peer reviewed data…Oh, well…Those who want to continue pedal pushing instead of lifting those legs are more than welcome to do so! I will continue advancing LPP! With that I get off my soap box…Joe