I was just reading the new Hammer Nutrition monthly “Endurance Nutrition”. In it Steve Born (Hammer’s head nutrition guy) takes Bob Seebohar to task over his article in Triathlon Magazine regarding increased Salt (sodium) intake for racing. Born sites the very same research referenced by Seebohar but with totally opposite conclusions. Seebohar concludes that we should take in more sodium for racing including pre-loading sodium before a race. Without me getting into too many specifics regarding the research, Born basically says in his article that Seebohar’s conclusions are rubbish. He says that increasing sodium intake before and during a race can cause the body to lose sodium more quickly. He recomends a low sodium diet to train the body to lose less during performance coupled with an individualized fine tuning thru trial and error of sodium requirements. Seebohar and Born literally site the same research but draw completely opposite conclusions.
I’m not looking to debate the merits of either approach. But this is just another example of where supposed “experts” completely contradict each other. Other examples off the top of my head just in our sport:
Cadence
Strength Training
LSD versus High Intensity training
Swim / Don’t swim in off season
Heel Strike vs all the other running “methods”
I’m sure others could add extensively to this list. Part of this, no doubt, is human nature. People will always disagree and we love a vigorous debate. As someone trying to decipher the “knowledge” out there I find it exhausting to wade through everything. It seems like “science” is just a front word used to sell an idea or product these days. The average person doesn’t know what to believe or whom to listen to. That got me thinking about something Sutton said awhile back regarding why his athletes were so sucessful. He said that science by its nature can find what works best for most people but not the individual. So training plans using the latest science tend to produce very good but not great athletes (I’m taking license with his words here because I can’t remember the exact statement). He said that his approach is totally focused on the athlete. He watches them train and adjusts their regiment, nutrition, fit, etc on the fly. Other coaches who folow all the latest “science” just end up with athletes at the upper echelon of mediocrity.
In thinking about my own training I often wonder how or if I should individualize the plan to better match myself. I realized that I’m not even sure what questions I would need to ask to even begin that process. Of course, this is a great argument for getting a coach. But for those of us self coaching, where do you even begin when even the experts can’t seem to agree on anything?
P.S. I’m aware that this is totally over thinking, well, everything but I guess that is what a forum is for.
Seebohar and Born literally site the same research but draw completely opposite conclusions.
I’m not looking to debate the merits of either approach. But this is just another example of where supposed “experts” completely contradict each other. Other examples off the top of my head just in our sport:
Why is this the case? My pet theory is that because it’s Triathlon, people seem to think that the basic and fundamental principals of physics and physiology, to say nothing of common sense, don’t seem to apply. That we can just make up something completely new because it’s Triathlon. How else to explain two people siting the same paper and coming to completely different opinions about it.
Sodium replacement is a good example - for years it was never an issue. We did marathons and Ironmans for years and a few cups of Gatorade and a banana or two was all we needed. Now, apparently we had it all and completely wrong - and today endurance athletes all over the place are popping salt pills like candy and not only that, literally every nutritional product is now Sodium fortified! We went from nothing in a few short years, to swimming in sodium. How did it get that way?
I don’t even know why those are up for debate. The answer to the first one is not one nor the other but both. And the second, think about it this way, would you take the winter off from running? Cycling?
If you look at the sport since say the mid to late 80’s, in 86 Dave Scott posted an 8:28, in 89 Mark Allen posted an 8:09, In 2001 Tim De Boom posted 8:31 to win, Macca hit 8;15 to win in 2007, Alexander 8;17 last year, Van Lierde in 96 hit the only significant improvement on Allen’s time with I think the 8:04.
So since Dave Scott got past the 8:30 barrier all those years ago we have not seen a huge improvement in the times being put out. Allen hit the low 8 mark 20 years ago arguably before we really got into sports scienvce in the huge we way do now. A possible theory is that all the products, supplements, sports drinks and super aero equipment mean bugger all when compared to the engine inside.
A possible answer to the experts and I guess to the all the equipment makers is yes what they are suggesting or selling makes an insignificant difference when comapred with the training and heart of the competitor.
Of course I could be wrong and the answer is a 10000 dollar bike with a zipp disc and 1080 front
fatbastard, people are idiots. including many people that call themselves experts.
welcome to planet earth, sorry about the mess.
I was just reading the new Hammer Nutrition monthly “Endurance Nutrition”. In it Steve Born (Hammer’s head nutrition guy) takes Bob Seebohar to task over his article in Triathlon Magazine regarding increased Salt (sodium) intake for racing. Born sites the very same research referenced by Seebohar but with totally opposite conclusions. Seebohar concludes that we should take in more sodium for racing including pre-loading sodium before a race. Without me getting into too many specifics regarding the research, Born basically says in his article that Seebohar’s conclusions are rubbish. He says that increasing sodium intake before and during a race can cause the body to lose sodium more quickly. He recomends a low sodium diet to train the body to lose less during performance coupled with an individualized fine tuning thru trial and error of sodium requirements. Seebohar and Born literally site the same research but draw completely opposite conclusions.
I’m not looking to debate the merits of either approach. But this is just another example of where supposed “experts” completely contradict each other. Other examples off the top of my head just in our sport:
Cadence
Strength Training
LSD versus High Intensity training
Swim / Don’t swim in off season
Heel Strike vs all the other running “methods”
I’m sure others could add extensively to this list. Part of this, no doubt, is human nature. People will always disagree and we love a vigorous debate. As someone trying to decipher the “knowledge” out there I find it exhausting to wade through everything. It seems like “science” is just a front word used to sell an idea or product these days. The average person doesn’t know what to believe or whom to listen to. That got me thinking about something Sutton said awhile back regarding why his athletes were so sucessful. He said that science by its nature can find what works best for most people but not the individual. So training plans using the latest science tend to produce very good but not great athletes (I’m taking license with his words here because I can’t remember the exact statement). He said that his approach is totally focused on the athlete. He watches them train and adjusts their regiment, nutrition, fit, etc on the fly. Other coaches who folow all the latest “science” just end up with athletes at the upper echelon of mediocrity.
In thinking about my own training I often wonder how or if I should individualize the plan to better match myself. I realized that I’m not even sure what questions I would need to ask to even begin that process. Of course, this is a great argument for getting a coach. But for those of us self coaching, where do you even begin when even the experts can’t seem to agree on anything?
P.S. I’m aware that this is totally over thinking, well, everything but I guess that is what a forum is for.
And the second, think about it this way, would you take the winter off from running? Cycling?
Sure. I took the winter off running, so I could do a massive swim focus. And it worked - I took about 12 minutes off my 70.3 swim split yesterday (OK, so maybe the Superfrog course is a bit short). I suffered a bit during the run, but that’ll come around in a couple of months, well in time for the core of the season. And I’m fairly confident that my swim improvement will stick, so I think it was a good decision on my part. Attack weakness relentlessly
I hate swimming, but damn, it made my whole winter worthwhile yesterday running into T1 and realizing a new problem I’d never had before: finding my bike.
The easy answer is become an expert yourself. I just took a 6 week long course on renal physiology (first year med student) and I learned a lot and can now read those articles with a…pardon the pun…grain of salt. Do some research on your own about how the body handles sodium loading and unloading and come to your own conclusions.
I think the mistake many make is in believing that science has everything figured out; they don’t. Science is ever changing. Look at the cause of fatigue as an example. Humans have been experiencing muscular fatigue for thousands of years yet science is still studying different theories. Same thing goes with muscular craps - only theories. I like this quote from Tim Noakes “We may never know whether the axioms or models we use are true or correct, only that they have yet to be disproved.”
I also like your paraphrase of Sutton. It really is an individual matter.
(Edit: addition)
This is why the most dangerous coach out there is the one who’s opinions are black and white; believing there is only one way.
I don’t even know why those are up for debate. The answer to the first one is not one nor the other but both. And the second, think about it this way, would you take the winter off from running? Cycling?
X2 For years I always took the winter off with cycling. Not from any great plan I just hated cycling in the cold and I’m basically a runner and wanted to concentrate on my running. Come spring I’d get back on the bike and guess what, I was a piss poor cyclist. No surprise there and it’s the same with any activity. If you want to maintain a high level at anything you continue it year round. Nothing wrong with cutting back volume and intensity periodically but quitting any activity for a period of time will cause you to have to spend time to get back to your former level. The more time off the longer it takes.
