Hi Jo,
I unfortunately saw that your kickstarter is not going as planned.
With a quick google search I saw that theres tons of websites which provide free platforms for creating apps such as you intend to do!
Here is an example:
http://www.appmakr.com/
I believe with your knowledge and motivation you can continue to push your ideas forward even without the money from kickstarter!
Can’t wait to download the app!
Mike
Joe,
I think you are being profoundly insulting to Jobs and the Wrights by even alluding that you are in the same boat as them. And that’s ignoring all of the subtle and highly interesting bits of their stories.
For example, the Wrights poured over a vast quantity of aerodynamic data while building their planes. Oh look, there is that word again: data. Indeed, one of the unsung aspects of the Wright story is that they did one of the best and most systematic series of wind tunnel tests of the time period. See, tests data, etc. You share utterly nothing in common with them.
Jobbs and the Wrights also presented the word with products and technologies for the world to see, you’ve just blabbered on a whole bunch but you’ve quite literally not shown a single point of data, or any real substantiation.
You are completely out of touch with reality if you expect people to meet your idea with anything other skepticism if not outright contempt due to the way you are presenting it. Of course you’re entitled to present your stuff in any way you see fit, and people are likewise entitled to response to your stuff in any way they see fit.
I’ve given you ample opportunity to present even the most simple of analysises to back up your claims. You’ve basically categorically refused and made a bunch of smoke and mirrors posts instead. To me that can only mean you are either technically incapable, or your idea is bullshit and there is no data to back it up.
That is all.
Have you considered including potato salad recipes? https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/324283889/potato-salad
MikeB,
Don’t worry Mike. I will find a way to fund the effort on my own as a function of time. Crowd funding doesn’t seem to be the right way to go. I will continue working on getting more data and developing the means to instruct people on how to use the technology.
If you want to know more about it, please have DhruvB tell you how to get in touch with me so that I can send you a white paper that I wrote on it. The paper explains in detail how it works. You are welcome to share it in confidence with the guys out there that are truly interested in trying the concept. I will be available through direct contact by phone of email to provide any additional information or help. I will also stay connected to this portal to provide additional information from the Pro that is trying it. Cheers…Joe
DavidF,
Awesome my friend!!! That concept may work much better for Kickstarter! Heck, I do have an awesome spaghetti sauce recipe that could be a hit! He, he…
Gentlemen,
Yesterday I got some pretty impressive race results related to one triathletes that successfully transitioned to pure LPP. I have his official standings at the Coeur d’Alene Full Iron Man triathlon, which happened last week in Idaho. I need to ask him for permission to allow me to posted them here. I will also ask him if he doesn’t’ mind sharing with us the details of his experience during his 112 mile bike leg. Stay tuned….Cheers…Joe
MikeB,
I have been thinking about your App resources suggestion and I will definitively look at the App website you uncovered and similar ones to see how they can help me with the LPP informatics. Having said that, I think that I may take the approach of creating an LPP ebook that will contain a good set of performance/power data that we are starting to collect. The ebook can be followed up with the App. The reason is that I have already developed the bulk of the material for ebook and with some minor adds plus the performance/power data, it can become a very useful tool to get people into the LPP technology. It should designed to be easy to digest and its principles readily applied. In mind my it should be short, sweet, to the point and very reasonably priced so that it is very accessible.
Knowing that an ebook is in the offing as a first step, I would greatly appreciate if you and by all means, some the guys that may be interested in getting a closer look at LPP, can give me some feedback as to what kind of approach would be best for the app. EI: Instructional vs. performance gathering/tracking. That would be extremely helpful.
Officially, on Monday we start a more structured Pro level power data gathering process. We are going to ultimately expand this to other levels as I get my hands on some power meters. My preference is to ultimately use the Garmin Vector because I can look at power output from each leg as well as combined power. Expanding the study to the different levels of cycling will be very good in order to get a good cross section of performance/power info. Looking forward to your feedback!..Joe
potato salad @ nearly 45k
I don’t suppose we’ll have any power data to compare from this triathlete. Like you know, some kind of actual evidence that LPP drastically improved his performance of the bike leg over previous efforts/races?
And for the record, the reason why we are giving you such a hard time about this whole LPP thing is because most of us here at McGill have learned to do critical thinking. If we are being critical about you ‘work’, it’s because you’re not doing it right to be taken seriously enough. You need to be following the same kind of scientific method that exercise physiologists did when they were working with SRM and developing the current technology of clip less shoes and muscle recruitment patterns of the pedal stroke.
What you need to do is follow the same approach they did, but add in another test group using the same subjects. None of us want to hear anything about a particular person you’ve successfully led down the same rabbit whole you’ve fallen into.
If you are serious about LPP, try and act like it. Be professional about it, and we’ll take you seriously
That is amazing!!! Well, I guess there is much more serious interest in eating than pedaling out there!
Justin,
The suggestion of sharing past, present and future data on the technology was done a while back and is very welcome by me. Along those lines I started communication with your club president and I’m still very interested in pursuing that process. At this time, the issue at hand is whether or not your team has the resources to do so. If your Executive Committee is interested in getting involved in seriously exploring the potential of this technology, I’m absolutely sure that we can figure out a path that makes sense to look at LPP in a very scientific yet affordable manner. The bottom line is that I’m all for it and would be delighted to provide the information.
Coeur d’Alene Full Iron Man in Idaho - Total number of Participants - 2,466
Bike Course - 112 miles with approximately 7,500 feet of climbing
Name of the Athlete - Tyler Johns
First Full Iron Man for Tyler
Swim Time - 1:22.52
Approximate position out of the water - 1,155/2,466
Bike Time -5:38.41
Method of Propulsion - Lift Propulsive Pedaling - No other technique was used
Approximate position out of the bike - 250/2,466
Run Time - 4:31.26
Official position out of the Marathon run - 361/2,466
Official Iron Man Time - 11:45.49
Other stats
His bike time was within the first 100 best times for the bike segment of the Tri
His time bested the bike time of some of the top 50,75 and 100 athletes of the Tri
Tyler didn’t have a power meter on the bike, however, the fact that he performed the bike leg of the Coeur d’Alene with those stats, by exclusively using LPP seems to point out to the fact that the technique is good enough to match a competitive full Iron Man bike performance within the 4 percentile of what is considered to be a very challenging bike course for a full Iron Man.
An impressive result, however all of this says absolutely nothing about LPP. Maybe it does in terms of peaking someone’s interest to investigate further but it is not what I would call solid proof that it works. This is what we all need:
PLUG IN THE POWER FILE AND GET IT TRANSLATED THROUGH TO SPIN SCAN ANALYSIS. THAT IS BY FAR THE MOST IMPORTANT TOOL YOU SHOULD BE USING.
Nobody wants to hear: “I used LPP strategy and that’s it”
Use spin scan analysis and show us actual data that your athletes are not actually their glutes, quads, or calves during LPP and that it results in higher power output.
I’m really not sure how you believe you can prove your product otherwise in a professional manner. This kind of studies have been throughly investigated, and this is how they all do it. I don’t know how you could have undertaken this project without knowing that. You’re proving that you haven’t done your research and you have no business working on this one.
I’m positive that any kind of improvements in cycling efficiency that he’s ‘seeing’ is not because they’re using only the upstroke to generate power. He is merely teaching people how to use the upstroke and they use it in conjunction with the downstroke. The introduction of a proper pedal stroke using the downstroke and upstroke to increase efficiency is well documented and efficiency gains over exclusively the downstroke is in the 30% range. Going by client feel about how they’re only using the upstroke is absolutely stupid. 30% is huge, of course you’ll feel like you’re not using your quads. That doesn’t mean that you’re not using them at all, or that you’re using them less than your hamstrings and hip flexors.
+1 spin scan
I agree LPP sounds very suspicious. I haven’t read any papers (yet) about pedalling efficiency based on muscle recruitment. However, considering the thousands of hours pros put in, and hundreds that competitive amateurs put in, and the fact that they all try and eke out the most they can out of their bodies, I’m dubious that they missed a significant gain. Ratchet straps and BOAs have been out for years, and so there’s no major technical improvement in the last half dozen years at least.
Also, the papers I’ve read the abstracts of usually limited their analysis to a dozen or so subjects. Really? I know it’s harder to find hamsters to spin in a cage then electrons, but statistically, I don’t care how “significant” it is, it’s much to small a sample for me to be impressed. Sometimes, thousands of “evolutionary” experiments which are only recorded by their success can be more meaningful.
-1 SpinScan until proven otherwise.
SpinScan relies on a single sensor to determine power and then does “magic” to determine left-right balance. Also, they only get pedal position once a cycle. You can probably keep a relatively accurate estimate of the position from this and power, especially on a computrainer where conditions are controlled, but applying it to outdoors data, I’d be much less confident. On top of which, AFAIK, ANT+ sensors can only broadcast at most 4 measurements per seconds, which at a cadence of 90rpm is only 2.7 measurements per cycle. By collecting enough data, and assuming that you’re not pedalling at a frequency which is in sync with the transmission, you can do some interpolation.
The only way I can see them determining where the power actually comes from is to rely on assumptions about which leg is actually providing the effort based on the position of the pedal. I would assume that by changing the pedal stroke style, you’d throw it off badly. And I can’t find any technical explanation of how SpinScan™ works. It’s just as full of air as anything else so far.
Justin,
Thanks so much for the input. I will certainly take your advice at heart and work towards developing a test protocol as well as getting sets of solid data translated into Spin Scan Analysis. Great input, and I truly mean what I say! Results like Tyler Johns, which are indicative of an impressive bike performance under extreme conditions (jumping on a bike and dropping 800 plus competitors right after swimming 2 plus miles in a hurry!) provide me with a massive motivation to invest the time and resources in getting LPP fully understood at all levels regardless of the Kickstarter results.
Another triathlete that came to me for bike training a year ago with the goal of doing his first Iron Man in September of this year in Lake Tahoe provides a great opportunity to gather a full set of power data. He is a very strong athlete that went into triathlons from another sport. He hadn’t done cycling since childhood and he is his early 30’s. He is unique in that the only pedaling technique he knows is LPP. I have talked to him and I plan to have his bike fully instrumented so that we can get solid power data from his 112 mile tri leg.
As I come to funds, I will get additional power meters in the mix to gather more information. Cheers and once again, thanks for the suggestions!
Did somebody say spin scan?
Jon,
Where did you get your information from?
The info about ANT+ is certainly incorrect. ANT protocol has a 1 Mbit/s throughput, so there is no way the sensors are limited to 4 S/s, unless it’s a deliberate move by manufacturers to dumb down the capability of the protocol: battery life savings, etc.
AFAIK all of the main power meters have pedal discrimination because they have strain gauge rosettes or PE sensors either on each crank arm or each end of the BB axel. The major unknown is that the method requires computing an average angular velocity from the cadence sensor.
how do you guys post photos?