True, while Power produced with the 145- and 170-mm cranks was significantly (P < 0.05) greater than that produced with the 120- and 220-mm cranks, according to the study, 145s were not found to be significantly greater than 170s. Even so, the study does reinforce my personal experience that 175 (even 180) -- as convention would be suggest is appropriate for someone my size -- is not the most efficient crank length and that sub-145 is even better based on maximization of wattage. The error bars are interesting to consider since they represent the variability that exists among individuals. Unfortunately, it's difficult for individuals to work with this variable so most riders are pretty much stuck with adopting the consensus view about these matters, whether they question it or not. Triathletes are an exception to the extent that more of them as a percent are interested to see if their personal experience might challenge the conventional wisdom; and for those who have, some apparently have benefited from going to shorter cranks, for reasons that are in addition to whatever improvements in efficiency might be realized (e.g., seeing an improvement in run times after completion of the ride-part of the competition).