h2ofun wrote:
No, I don’t believe that data is showing me the peak. All it is saying to me is that there is indeed a relationship. The reason is I wasn’t gathering data to show this mathematically as a research project. If I were I would need to have the distribution of data points equal across the pedal speed distribution. I did not do this so there are fewer at the very high and very low end of the spectrum so these are having a smaller impact on the curve. Both lines are continuing to increase even at a pedal speed of 65 cm/sec, equivalent to 150 mm cranks at a cadence of about 40. That doesn’t pass the smell test. At least the polynomial is curving down suggesting efficiency doesn’t continue to increase all the way down to a cadence of zero.
So, once I felt I had demonstrated to myself that I had passed the peak I focused most of the testing around that pedal speed. If I were an academic researcher I would still be doing 200 mm cranks at a cadence of 100 and 150 mm cranks at a cadence of 30. I am not.
So, if the protocol is bad sometimes the math lies and the eyeball test wins. Dave’s peak efficiency is not at a pedal speed of 60 cm/sec or slower which is what the math is saying. In this case, I think it is clear to the average eyeball the peak lies between 100 and 120 cm/sec.
Frank Day
Wait, so now you're saying the protocol is bad so the eyeball test wins? I thought your position was that the protocol was good.
BTW, I agree that Dave's peak efficiency isn't at 60cm/s or slower. It doesn't make sense. But you are the one gathering the data to demonstrate it, so follow the data...
Swimming Workout of the Day:
Favourite Swim Sets:
2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly