I was hoping you'd use one of our favorite phrases - "it is a truer statement to say 'we are all exactly the same.' than it is to say, 'we are completely different.'" The idea of relative "truth" is an idea that's been perverted, but it is fundamentally accurate. Daniel Patrick Moynihan had the famous statement - "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

That's not entirely true. The difference is a matter of consensus. Fitting to ones abilities - rather than disabilities - focuses on consensus rather than divergence. One idea that I am increasingly attached to is the "Anna Karenina principle" - https://en.wikipedia.org/...a_Karenina_principle - a reference to the quote from said novel - "All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."


When people talk about being different, the correct question is often, "yes, but does that actually matter?" And why does it matter. I'm reminded of Paul Swift, who I agree with on a lot of things about bike fit, but not everything. The fact that people may have leg length discrepancies (putting aside the legitimate debate about whether functional leg length discrepancies are a thing, and also how often actual leg length discrepancies actually exist.). WHY does it matter that your legs are not the same length. There's not actually good evidence that it does. The answer is too often, "it has to!" But why does it have to?

That something may in fact exist is not proof of its importance.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

I'll nit pick. You state that "[a] Catholic ascribes to 'transubstantiation,' where the bread and wine are sacramentally transformed into the body and blood of Christ once administered." Actually, transubstantiation occurs when the priest consecrates the bread and wine; it does not occur when they are consumed. That's how I've always understood it. But again, this is nit picking.

---

Mike Sparks


I have competed well, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.

Given the ongoing replication crisis in various fields of study, I'm not quite sure professional consensus should have the cachet being ascribed.

I think that is why it is a big deal to not consume it all.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

I agreed with your article

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Yet the replication "crisis" is its own strength. It provides the mechanism for rational recognition of a conflict. Often using clear, objective metrics. We wouldn't even know there was a "replication crisis" if this construct for transparent consensus-making did not exist.

Poking holes in existing methodology is great. The entire replication construct was *designed* for people to poke holes.

But I wouldn't remove "cachet" unless you're proposing some alternative you think is better. What's better? Tribal alignment? Populist - pick the mostly publicly popular opinion as the mainstream doctrine? Or pure egalitarianism, maybe - everyone's ideas are good! Who are we to criticize?

I guess it depends on what your view of "replication crisis" is. If the crisis is frequently when we try to replicate studies we cannot and alot of studies are being used to generate policy before they have been replicated then that is a problem. In medicine many of the studies that are being done are very expensive and involve large numbers so it is difficult to replicate them. If we are replicating alot of studies and throwing out a fair number that is a good thing.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

1. I think you're inferring something that fits into a convenient political pigeonhole; you can get an one-time carte blanche for that confirmation bias. ;)

2. Experts and professionals can be a valuable resource, as they accumulate and understand a certain body of knowledge. One of the fundamental issues with the replication crisis is whether that core body of knowledge consists of assumptions/conclusions/etc. are, in fact, accurate and true.

3. Without getting too far into epistemology, reliance on an expert or professional opinion is fundamentally a heuristic process. That opinion should be fundamentally justifiable through evidence, logical induction, or some other sort of "proof".

4. You put forth a lot of strawman alternatives. One should always utilize and demand best available information; my personal approach is to be skeptical of any appeals to authority (even if that is a credential in a relevant field) and inquire into the logic and evidence behind such opinions. I find legal counsel being the most frequent target of such questioning.

5. I apologize in advance for not turning this into an anti-mask rant, as may have been expected.

So, everyone gets their communion bread from the same place unless it's a special week where a more localized version is made by parishioners. But standard communion bread is blessed at the bakery which happens to be an Abbey. Wine however always has to be blessed. And you are correct, if neither are blessed then they're not pieces of the sacrament and are just bread and wine.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

.. for me this forum is a great language course .. consensus is the immanent basic of communication .. sentences are just symbols .. connectivity is the magic of awareness .. the start is already done .. it's personal to encounter the finish .. for this article I had to look up many many words and think a lot .. the price is to get closer to the language professionals around the world connect to each other ..

---

*
___/\___/\___/\___ the s u r f b o a r d of the K u r p f a l z is the r o a d b i k e .. oSo >>

I really appreciate when you “make your thinking visible” as we currently say in education. You make a well-thought out argument, and I appreciate it.

---

Aaron Bales
Lansing Triathlon Team

I think it's the opposite.

Any amateur can find a single study to support their viewpoint. It's the professionals at the top of their field who have the breadth of knowledge pull the truth out.

I just don't think the lack of replication is nearly as big a deal as is often ascribed. Replicability is part of validation. Study results don't start to approach axiomatic truth until they're replicated over and over. I don't think anyone who knows what they're talking about in any given field thinks single studies are definitive of anything.

Part of my opinion on this is biased by what I perceive as many people using a lack of replicability in some studies in bad faith -- often as part of an argument that there should not be environmental regulations at all (or something similar).

I really enjoyed your essay! As I read through it, I thought it's the kind of piece that could be appreciated by people outside triathlon and cycling, too.

well... bless your heart!

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Good article.

But, historically, in many fields, professional consensus has been wrong so many times. Even with highly trained and highly educated professionals. New evidence is uncovered and accepted and then what professionals recommend and do rapidly changes because evidence is far more convincing than professional consensus.

The medical field is a great example of this, medical professionals have recommended and done things historically that were highly non-beneficial. And they are still doing this today, but we just don't know (right now) what they're doing that is correct, and what they're doing that is wrong.

Some years ago, a dean said to his Harvard Medical School students: "Half of what we are going to teach you is wrong, and half of it is right. Our problem is that we don't know which half is which."

---

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

actually, it (the professional consensus) is mostly wrong. this is the paradox. manufacturing processes, and materials, and tools, and designs and application, are almost entirely different today for the same use case as they were, say, 500 years ago. the trick is in how you select the deviation from professional consensus. are you the guy who is going to deviate from how a particular kind of heart surgery is performed? on what basis?

let me put it another way. how do you feel about genes that predispose you to cancer? is it a good thing? probably not. what about cystic fibrosis? sickle cell anemia? all genetic disorders. none of them good. however, the only way a species progresses is by genetic mutation: a deviation from the norm. deviations from the norm are not only occasionally good, they're the only way we progress. but how many deviations end up as a sad story for every deviation that ends happily?

in the other forum, where you take part, there are folks over there that are certain that the professional consensus is wrong on mask wearing during a pandemic. the only way we'll progress as a culture is by finding out that an overwhelming consensus of professionals was wrong about something. do you think we should try that out with masks? do you think it's responsible to experiment with that?

the way we find a new way forward is through a process that minimizes the harm to society during our investigations. we know how to make bridges. somebody comes along with a better way. there's a process by which we make sure that way works before we cut the ribbon during the grand opening and send the cars across. meanwhile, we follow the consensus best practices by civil engineers when building bridges.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I liked the article a lot, but one thing I didn't agree with was the medical analogy about 'everyone is different'.

If you have an illness, and there is a known cure, you take the cure.

In the case of training, there is no 'known cure'. Hence the everyone is different.

There is a known cure. Everyone is doing the same stuff, and has been since the 1960's.

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

I'm getting a Dunning-Kruger vibe here...

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

This is the scientific method in a nutshell... having the wisdom to know some of your wisdom might not be wisdom.

Edit: Feynman? Can't remember...

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

this is the reason i wrote the essay. the trick is to know when it's okay to deviate from an adherence to best practices. why don't you ask lionel sanders how such deviation worked out for him? before his choice to return to a coach who deploys orthodox methods?

now, me? do i adhere to known best practices in my training? often not. why? the cost of following a spartan regime outweighs the cost of a better performance. in the case of my training, i'm not faced with an urgency that attaches to the decisions i make. with lionel, the cost is higher.

deviation from best practices is fine when we don't care; when the consequences of failure (or of sub-optimal outcome) are not high. but i don't try to fool myself into thinking my deviation is okay because "everybody is different."

when such deviation from best practices bears consequences to others, that adds a factor to the calculation. you have a duty to yourself, but you are a free agent. you have a duty to others, as well, and in this you are not a free agent. if you choose to ride your bike without a helmet, you may. but... do you have a family that relies upon you? this limits your agency.

there is a cost to you, and perhaps to others, when you deviate from commonly acknowledged best practices. deviate away. just, acknowledge the cost. own the cost.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I've been in engineering of one kind or another since 2003. All of it at some point had the lean manufacturing and six sigma training. I've done all the kaizen and SPS events I ever care to do.

I do enjoy problem solving.

Here's how it goes for me at work:

-First, research the company cLean site of prior SPS/A3 and events for your problem. Perhaps a similar problem has already been addressed before. Attempt to lean on best practices first.

-Next, A3/SPS.
-Problem definition, refined problem statement (what, when, where, how much loss, what procedure used, specifics)
-Fishbone: man, machine, method, material, measurement, environment
-Pareto for likely and impact to start with items with high impact and high likelyhood
-Temporary loss mitigation (usually, return everything to "base" condition......thorough cleaning, lube, inspect, tighten, replace worn)
-5Y and an H for each of those chosen
-Enact solution but see if you can duplicate the problem by removing the solution
-Enact a process to ensure the problem doesn't recur


For the bike, think of getting faster as three SPS/A3's. One physiological, one mechanical, one aero.

The pareto for the mechanical might be:
-bearings (wheels, crank, derailleur)
-tire CRR, pressure, size, durability, etc..
-drivetrain efficiency (chain, lube, bend radius, chain line, pedal bearings/grease)

The pareto would basically move from likelihood and impact to impact and cost. Watts/$$ Choosing the free/easy or cheaper impactful first.

Apply the same to aero.

With these principles I see a LOT of bike racers who just don't pay attention to optimal "base condition". You don't need to be able to lick your parts, but they ought to be clean and in intended optimal condition.

Also, not many people apply the pareto of impact versus cost. Your "risk" matrix. They buy the most visible things first. The fancy bike, the fancy wheels, etc........ When the pareto would dictate otherwise

They say cLean is a culture and a journey. Given it is a journey, a racer might take years simply attaining "base conditions" and things like "best practices" and the easiest items on the pareto.

Only then would you really be getting into the "Team Sky marginal gains" level of detail once you're far enough along on the journey.

Same with training. If you don't even have the base volume and few years down yet, probably not best yet to be ignoring the easy wins on the pareto and jumping to the lower reward pickier stuff.

On my TT bike.......I'm just now moving past most basics and bigger gains to smaller.

I basically went:
-clip-ons on road bike with cheap sleeved skinsuit and Giro Adv 2
-was gifted a broken TT frame that I repaired and setup, did a basic fit on that with cheap parts to get it rolling
-started by replacing cockpit first so I could do more fit stuff then honed that
-got wheels
-did the fancier skinsuit, nicer helmet, and shoes/socks/covers stuff, tweaked fit better for that
-better wheels (modern tire sizes)
-most picky detailed and expensive helmet choice and fit for that
-next is going to be drivetrain optimization

Once I'm done with that, I'll move into "hold you hands this way, or that way" or "shorter pedal spindles" or "leave a strip of unshaved leg hair".

So the idea of what you describe is good; it is the execution that I have seen repeated over so many times that falls very far from the mark. People go through the exercises for the purpose of going through the exercises and so they can say 'look at me, Im playing company person'. They seem to expect that their suggestion to put wheels on a raw materials cart is on par with a solution to the problem of world hunger. What I have seen it come down to is that there are not that many individuals who have the ability to see the changes that will make a difference. Some might call them future seers; but what they can really do is observe the data and see it in the context of a system. This system approach allows them to predict a more likely outcome for multifactorial problems. Fewer still of these people are actually heard, because there is a whole cohort of individuals who want to receive/steal accolades and climb the ladder. Most people would like to be a rock-star; but a very small percentage have the chops for it.
We live in an interesting time that allows individuals to feel as though they are a rock-star by surrounding themselves by only the voices that support their world view. People could do this previously, and maybe Im being naive that it did not happen to the level we currently experience... but I probably am being naive, so I digress until I have more data to be able to make a more thoughtful contribution.

Stephen J

---

I believe my local reality has been violated.
____________________________________________
Happiness = Results / (Expectations)^2

I re-read your article, you weaved many layers into your essay for the reader to tease out. And I enjoyed that process. I have also enjoyed other products of your efforts: I bought my first QR wetsuit in 1989.

Generally, your article all makes sense. If it were me at one of your fit clinics, I would not be the one to argue about the outlier case or cases. Sure, those always exist, and of course those outlier cases often need to be handled differently. But if one follows the statistical bell curve, then that is where the real wisdom (or not) of consensus can be applied (or not).

But my observation in life and sport is this:

Even among highly qualified professionals, there are areas of consensus that are based on evidence, and there are areas of consensus based on history, tradition, anecdote, trial & error, and best practice; but not on evidence. I think differentiating between these two areas of consensus is important, as the distinction between the two is not trivial.

Interestingly, both areas of consensus can be equally accurate, or both can be equally wrong. For example, there could be areas of consensus that somehow in the end will be proven correct, but currently simply don't yet have the hard evidence to back them up. Equally, there could areas of consensus based on evidence, but we are not yet aware that the 'evidence' supporting that area of study happens to be faulty in significant ways. But these cases are outliers.

Usually consensus supported by evidence is the most compelling. Consensus based on trial & error, anecdote, and best practice is still valuable, but it is an area where questions and and a good dose of healthy skepticism are warranted, and where more experimentation is called for. We should still consider and learn from this kind of experience-based consensus, but we also should be comfortable as teachers, practitioners, or students in acknowledging that this kind of consensus is not evidence-based. That does not mean that the consensus view here is useless, or that it is wisdom worthy of being forever carved in stone.

Instead, it just means that it is an area of evolving science, and there is nothing wrong with that. Because most of human knowledge is an evolving science and will be that way essentially forever.

---

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