GCN appears to be trending toward creating "Mythbusters" type videos for cycling. Would have been beneficial to put a little background discussion in the video, and reference your work.

I want that treadmill ...



.

---

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook
--

I've said it many times; almost no study is generalizable to the overall population. And darn few have statistically significant outcomes to the population(s) they studied. However, time and time again I hear from an athlete that "this study says....".

When I was coaching at the OTC, we looked at some High Performance Testing results that indicated that most of the elite cyclists didn't pull up at the back of the pedal stroke. At best, they were unloading the back pedal. However, coaches around here still preach "push down at the front, pull up at the back" to the confusion of their athletes. Hoooboy....

There are probably myriad papers that could be given the popular treatment. Wouldn't even need to replicate the experiment, necessarily. It's the kind of gap that I referenced in my post a week or so ago. Guys like you tend to clap your hands together and call it good once the paper is "camera ready." Often no one picks up the ball and runs from that that point.

Though, to give you credit, you have written at least one very accessible book.

However, the point of this post isn't that the experiment has been done before, but to contrast the two ways of conveying such information to the cycling public. To wit, I expect that their effort will have far bigger impact on end-users than our results ever have, because they have leveraged the "direct-to-consumer marketing" power of the internet to share their data with those for whom it has the greatest relevance. So, kudos to them!


Given that high quality, science journal submissions are loaded with jargon and lack general read-ability, I'd suspect that the only people reading them are those in academia and those who have a particular interest in the area of study. One of the major 'problems' with publishing in journals is that the reading is tedious and boring due to its specificity and technical speech. Reading journals makes me want to gouge my eyes out with the nearest available blunt object. Thank goodness for the people who take the science and laymen it down for those who have a general interest in the topic but lack the time and/ or training to understand the journal entry. This holds true when you compare the type of writing present in your linked journal entry versus the language present in your books. Journals writing doesn't cater to the idea that they want the masses to understand the article. So, in the end, I agree with your conclusion. Kudos to them for presenting interesting information interestingly.

---

---

---

Take a short break from ST and read my blog:
http://tri-banter.blogspot.com/

The only problem I see with the Internet is the lack of verification.
How do we know that something posted on the Internet is fair, independent and un biased or indeed plain faked?

However, that said as far as sports science is concerned much of the scientific papers published have been hijacked or misrepresented by industry, particularly the sports drink and sports supplememt industry.

Then you have the problem of where the funding comes from.

Not to mention how we probably never see studies which don't show what those who finance them want us to see.

What does that say about science and the researchers other than they've failed?

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

I hear what you're saying, but not sure it really applies to me, as I am not, and never have been, an applied sports scientist (nor have I ever desired to be one, as I explained to the late Ed Burke back in the mid-1980s when he encouraged me to essentially follow in his footsteps). IOW, the intended audience for my scientific papers has been other scientists, not coaches and/or athletes.


Thanks, but practically all of the credit really belongs to 1) Hunter Allen, who not only initiated the project in the 1st place but also wrote the majority of both editions, and 2) our editor, Renee Jardine, who I think did a marvelous job meshing our two markedly-disparate writing styles together. (I'm too steeped in "science-ese" to write really well for a lay audience, which is why I'm so grateful for people like Renee or Alex Simmons, who can often explain my ideas more clearly than I can.)

I see that you've been drinking Noakes' Cool-Aid (pun intended)...

If scientific lab experiments were the definitive answer to most of competitive sports' questions about training and performance, top level coaches would be hired far more for their scientific acumen than their experience and subjective assessment.

As wonderful as science is, it's pretty clear that it is NOT the be all end all to these questions. Yes, science has added a lot of insight to general principles of training, but it more often than not fails when coming to dictating what regimen is best for a specific athlete seeking to achieve their maximum potential. Which is why a coach with limited science background but proven coaching results over many athletes will be far more valuable as a coach compared to the PhD candidate who has read almost everything under the sun regarding the numbers and measurements and even principles related to athletic training but has limited experience navigating the subjective realities of training someone.

There actually is a lot of 'crap' science published out there in the sporting/endurance arena. One of the most common repeat offenders is someone pushing the next "HIIT" (high intensity/short workout) regimens, and then using a secondary measurement, like 'gene activation' or 'biomarker activation' rather than comparing actual long-term race results to show it's better.

I work in science, so I'm not a luddite or tea party republican, but I definitely have learned to see the significant limitations in science. (Still, a lot of science is wayyyy better than no science!)

Failed at what? Getting relevant information into the hands of "practitioners"? Probably true in the case of many sports scientists...but most people I know working in the area don't see that as their most important goal.

Not so much practitioners but the general public. IMO if coaches etc won't go look at the research themselves and think about how it fits into/changes/impacts the way they do things they are doing a disservice to their athletes.

I'm talking about communicating with the general public.

There is a reason why science is losing to the pundits on many issues even though the pundits are way off base many times. I see the scientific community lacking the ability to communicate those results and what they mean to the general public.

A pundit on fox (maybe it is maybe it isn't)news has more pull with a falsehood in one segment with the general public than quite possibly someone will have with their entire academic/scientific career and the body of work they've done.

that, imo, is a fail on the part of science. When some BS reporter can have a greater impact on science and the discuss on science than the scientist does.

I think it's unfortunate that more researchers/scientists don't make a better effort to explain to the general public more often what their research means to the general public.

They should be the ones driving the debate on the science not the non scientists.

(this has probably gone into LR territory now)

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

I agree w/ you wholeheartedly (as I used to tell attendees at USAC coaching clinics, you don't really need to know much about exercise physiology to be a highly successful coach).


Even scarier is when it is not a coach but someone w/ a PhD in exercise physiology and actual experience working w/ elite athletes. It's like such people have no common sense...


Again, I couldn't agree more.

I know you and Noakes don't see eye to eye on a lot of things but both you and he should be congratulated for writing books and using the Internet in a way the non scientist or academic can understand.

More scientists should do the same.

Cycling in particular being a non technique limited skill event compared to many more technical sports probably lends itself more to the sports scientist than most.

I'll tell it from the perspective from someone who works in science-allied fields (but not in exercise physiology) -

The complaint you have is valid, but I don't think it's a issue of lack of communication of scientists.

It's much simpler. It's for the most part what you are saying - most of the published results in sports science are NOT effective whatsoever when practiced in reality with true competitive athletes out of the lab. This isn't saying that we shouldn't continue that research - science by nature will fail in the vast majority of experiments, and our system of science today requires that even a lot of not-worthy science get published because it is important to have continued avenues of career-building for budding scientists who would otherwise leave science if they couldn't continue publishing these small/not-good results most of the time. (Even I support this, as a few of these budding scientists will indeed eventually hit 'the big game changing result' later on.)

But the few scientific results that DO hold up and are shown to be effective not just in the lab, but in real world racing, tend to get adopted very quickly. Powermeters (Thanks Andrew Coggan!) and their principles are a good example of this - there isn't a cycling coach out there who is ignorant of power based training, even if you don't necessarily need a powermeter to race triathlons at world-class level.

It's also important though to remember that all the lab stuff isn't worthless just because you can't personally apply the lab result to your athletes or yourself. Often times, the ideas thrown around in the lab evolve over years, and emerge later on, often in a different field of study as crucial advances. One of the best examples of this is studying bacterial sex. Seriously, in the 1960s, people were studying bacterial sex, just for the sake of studying bacterial sex. You'd think WTF!?!? What waste of research dollars in mental masturbation! Little did anyone know that 20 years down the road, all the techniques they developed in studying bacterial sex, form the cornerstone of molecular biology and all of recombinant DNA technology. If you work with DNA, you work with bacteria a LOT to make your DNA, and you use bacterial sex to manipulate it.

I too have spent a significant period of my 27 year career in data analytics and signal processing. I think a lot of the problems are created in what researchers DONT say. Their findings have very real limitations, but those are lost on many readers. Thus readers often improperly deduce what they think the findings tell them, and re-quote something that was not proven.

I only "publish" results for internal company use, not academic papers. But I find it useful to provide a specific section that clearly outlines what is NOT proved/supported. I.E. for something like this I might have said: this does not prove/disprove that the pedal systems are equivalent when trying to achieve high power during the last 15 minutes of a long (several hour) ride, this does not prove/disprove the pedal systems are equivalent when riding out of the saddle, this does not prove/disprove the pedal systems are equivalent during sprinting.

---

2015 USAT Long Course National Champion (M50-54)

Probably. I only brought it up here since Dave Clarke questioned my motives for using the internet for decades to engage in what would be called "outreach activities" if I were at traditional land-grant institution rather than making a career living off soft-money in a medical school environment.

This pretty much sums up the public view of science as seen through the filter of the internet. Which has resulted in an ever-growing population of anti-science citizens, who only understand science through their own filter and the internet.

Interesting you should mention that, as in the context of recent discussions here I was thinking about individuals in precisely your situation (be it in private industry or a government-funded lab). In some peoples' eyes, your work-product apparently doesn't count as "science", because it hasn't been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Now while it is true that that means the information isn't widely accessible and hasn't *necessarily* undergone formal, rigorous peer review, to claim that this means it isn't science is to completely misunderstand the purpose/significance of the peer-reviewed literature.

Simply put, science existed long before the latter instrument for sharing knowledge was developed, has continued to exist outside of that particular formalized structure, and will continue to exist (one hopes!) long after peer-reviewed journals have been consigned to the ash-heap of history by subsequent developments (e.g., the internet).

I am surprised to see that you are applauding this presentation of "data" so enthusiastically.
I agree that the internet is a very effective means of disseminating information, which can have great value, but can also be harmful.
I agree with another poster, that this kind of demonstration would be much more valuable if there was a tie in to real science (n>1).

Something like:
Conventional wisdom among cyclists is that use of pedal clips allows for a more efficient pedal stroke...
Scientific studies suggest that this is not the case during sustained efforts (cite references).
Demonstration follows.

I get what you are saying and agree. I'm moving beyond sports science into other realms.

Look at what's her name has done with the anti vaccination crowd. One has been actress can sway a large % of the population with he anti vaccination views and do it more effectively than the CDC or whomever can sway that vaccinations are important for kids.

When non scientists/news orgs drive general debate with myths/falsehoods/rebuking proven science and that becomes the standard of driving policy decisions/ making parental choices (i don't have kids & I'm often confused by choices parents make)/ making business decisions etc vs looking at the science and making a decision/policy etc off the science.

My perception is the scientific community voice gets drown out by the non scientific community on items that are scientific in nature.

I agree though with the adaptation of PM's, real world racing and other coaching stuff.

Now if only Andy would sign one of my copies of TRWPM!

---

Brian Stover USAT LII
Accelerate3 Coaching
Insta

The anti-vaccination movement is exactly the analogy I was thinking when I read the post.
Jenny McCarthy has caused more injury to children than vaccines, that's for sure.
I guess in her defense, her position was driven by a since discredited "scientific" paper.

Here we go again...

It is not a journal vs. internet issue - good scientists publish in academic journals, which they then leverage to do public outreach. I don't know what applied sports scientist crowd you hang out with, but my applied sports science colleagues engage with and work with athletes and coaches on daily basis and publish in journals (good ones too!). Here's but one example: http://www.runhilaryrun.ca/Trent.html

Does Jim Martin not engage with the public to your satisfaction? He's on this forum (Bio McGeek). So is Steve MacGregor. So is Phil Skiba. Would the good people of Slowtwitch be better served if all these guys published their data exclusively on the internet? Why don't you spend more time publishing your metabolism studies online on physician chat forums? That would be consistent with your perspective, wouldn't it?

Nowadays, academics, as a whole, can no longer sit up in the ivory tower and expect to survive. To qualify for many types of Canadian Institutes of Health Research funding (the NIH equivalent), knowledge users must be involved from the START, i.e., in the design of the research and in planning for its implementation. The NSF in the US requires substantial outreach efforts as part of many of its grant programs.

As others have noted above, one problem with internet publishing is that there is no assurance that the knowledge is either new or validated, which is the point of the peer review process. This deficiency in and of itself is well recognized and needs no further explanation for most reasonable people.

However, a very serious additional problem is that data published on the internet is not indexed in the proper places and is relatively difficult to find. This issue has caused serious problems in cycling science because when people publish work that may reflect ideas or "data" that you've posted across an array of (English-language, mostly membership-required) chat forums, you then publicly announce that people have "plagiarized" your ideas. Charges of plagiarism and intellectual theft are among the most serious charges that an academic can face, and your irresponsible charges have a chilling effect on those who wish to publish cycling science because ultimately your "work" will have to be repeated in real studies (that have ethics approval and been peer reviewed) and then you'll be all over Twitter & Facebook saying how "you invented it already." Who has the time and energy?

Anyone with a loud voice can stand at a street corner and yell out their "science." Your use of the internet is neither different nor better. Plenty of people, including yourself, publish in books, which are not necessarily better in terms of knowledge validation but at least a book is something tangible that can't be deleted at the click of a button (like dissenting comments!).

The real issue here is that you seek academic legitimacy in applied sports science without paying the dues of publishing in the proper places. I don't buy that your decision is a strategic one - you are sufficiently talented and aware to simultaneously publish in academic journals and to engage with stakeholders.

Dave Clarke