does sport science make us slower ???

peter kern

http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/toplists/inout=o/age=n/season=0/sex=M/all=y/legal=A/disc=MAR/detail.html

have a look at the fastest europeans and you will see some of the fastest european marathon times by europeans where run 1985.

The European Marathon record is almost 9 years old.

I am sure some will say it works for age groupers and that triathlon is getting faster and faster ( the current Irish duathlon champ is 42 ;-)

So where does sport science, garmins, polars , compresion tights have an proven positive impact ?

tunney

peter kern wrote: »

http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/toplists/inout=o/age=n/season=0/sex=M/all=y/legal=A/disc=MAR/detail.html

have a look at the fastest europeans and you will see some of the fastest european marathon times by europeans where run 1985.

The European Marathon record is almost 9 years old.

I am sure some will say it works for age groupers and that triathlon is getting faster and faster ( the current Irish duathlon champ is 42 ;-)

So where does sport science, garmins, polars , compresion tights have an proven positive impact ?

All you need to know is where your towel is

peter kern

Now I understand where I went wrong . I never used a towel ...... as i always went from swim gear into cycle gear to practice transitions, ;-)

sconhome

I would have thought that the 80's & 90's were potentially the golden era of sports chemistry.

tunney

peter kern wrote: »

Now I understand where I went wrong . I never used a towel ...... as i always went from swim gear into cycle gear to practice transitions, ;-)

A paraphrasing of the infamous Ford Prefect

(note they may not have been popular in German)

tunney

peter kern wrote: »

Now I understand where I went wrong . I never used a towel ...... as i always went from swim gear into cycle gear to practice transitions, ;-)

Ignore me I'm mostly harmless

peter kern

amphkingwest wrote: »

I would have thought that the 80's & 90's were potentially the golden era of sports chemistry.

I agree to some extend but in the 80 s how poor was ireland did they really have money for drugs ????

sconhome

Not to take away from any performance from the time, you have to account for pre WADA records with a slightly skewed view.

As a firm believer in hard work making the biggest improvements, the gadgets and science are part of the toolbox to working smarter in the longer term.

If we look at Ireland independently, yes there were some fantastic individual results in the period, I would believe certainly through hard work & dedication. There were whole countries whose sports programs developed sports chemistry to a new art and when you look at the raft of improvements or records across the board we have a fair idea as to what was going on.

Re cost of drugs, they could afford PCP for the cattle.

peter kern

yes but interestingly those countries which were best in doing drugs have actually v few top marathon runners.
Also i think its fair the say they were much more successful with females than with males.

and how many people do you think won the tour legally in the last 12 years ?

Alos in marathon running it was also the depth in the 80s ie the guys who where sub 2.30 runner that was way higher in the Usa and Ireland so do we think they also took drugs?

sconhome

peter kern wrote: »

and how many people do you think won the tour legally in the last 12 years ?

Theres this one guy who won it 7 times . . .

TriWazza

peter kern wrote: »

http://www.iaaf.org/statistics/toplists/inout=o/age=n/season=0/sex=M/all=y/legal=A/disc=MAR/detail.html

have a look at the fastest europeans and you will see some of the fastest european marathon times by europeans where run 1985.

The European Marathon record is almost 9 years old.

I am sure some will say it works for age groupers and that triathlon is getting faster and faster ( the current Irish duathlon champ is 42 ;-)

So where does sport science, garmins, polars , compresion tights have an proven positive impact ?

I personally believe it has nothing to do with Pharmacology or sports science and everything to do with socioeconomics. I also think that the dominance of African athletes in Endurance running has deterred potentially fantastic runners from ever entering the sport. Triathlon I believe will continue to get faster and it will attract a deeper and greater talent than we have seen to date. Its already happening ... take for example Lukas Vezbicas.

I recall Alaster Craig pointing out about the participation levels of endurance runners in eastern African nations and how for many its the only chance for a better life. If your up against a guys running to feed his family who do you think is going to win that foot race?

peter kern

the gadgets and science are part of the toolbox to working smarter in the longer term.

have you seen the documentary about brother colm?
It sound like he did not really have that much of an idea about times hr etc.
But he sees a lot with his eyes and just by looking at his athletes, and the way he works with them is amazing.

MyWebPersona

On the topic of sports science I see Beetroot juice is the new EPO

tunney

peter kern wrote: »

yes but interestingly those countries which were best in doing drugs have actually v few top marathon runners.
Also i think its fair the say they were much more successful with females than with males.

and how many people do you think won the tour legally in the last 12 years ?

Alos in marathon running it was also the depth in the 80s ie the guys who where sub 2.30 runner that was way higher in the Usa and Ireland so do we think they also took drugs?

For amateurs i think the biggest difference is in terms of body image and the definition accepted by and large by society as to what is a normal weight. People are just fatter now - amateur athletes and "normal" people alike.

tunney

amphkingwest wrote: »

Theres this one guy who won it 7 times . . .

I heard the only reason he won it the seventh time was because he had a Polar RX5.

tunney

MyWebPersona wrote: »

On the topic of sports science I see Beetroot juice is the new EPO

Ah gotta love rehashed years old research - the quantities of beetroot juice required to get gains mean effective "rooting" (the term given to beetroot juicing) means its cheaper to take EPO. Plus its easier to get caught "rooting" as it shows up in a urine test so much easier, mainly cause it turns your wee red in the quantities required to get an effect.

sconhome

peter kern wrote: »

the gadgets and science are part of the toolbox to working smarter in the longer term.

have you seen the documentary about brother colm?
It sound like he did not really have that much of an idea about times hr etc.
But he sees a lot with his eyes and just by looking at his athletes, and the way he works with them is amazing.

No I missed the program, heard it was very good.

His methods would seem to be all about hard work & dedication coupled with a good trainers eye for talent & detail. I would be suggesting the gadgets etc are a part of the way to successfully achieving an individuals maximum potential while stressing that they are no replacement for hard work.

Except where the individual has access to a Polar RCX5, and knows how to use it.

peter kern

MyWebPersona wrote: »

On the topic of sports science I see Beetroot juice is the new EPO

its now baked beetroots i think

tunney

peter kern wrote: »

its now baked beetroots i think

Taken as a suppository.......

sconhome

peter kern wrote: »

yes but interestingly those countries which were best in doing drugs have actually v few top marathon runners.
Also i think its fair the say they were much more successful with females than with males.

I think it is common enough understanding now that the female body reacted more to increased levels of growth hormones and male hormones than male bodies did. Hence why power sports saw bigger results (& women) or why agility sports were more successful where hormones were controlled to slow the onset of puberty

peter kern wrote: »

Alos in marathon running it was also the depth in the 80s ie the guys who where sub 2.30 runner that was way higher in the Usa and Ireland so do we think they also took drugs?

The answer to this is simply the depth of the gene pool for natural selection. A huge population pool of (?) 500m versus 4m is always going to produce a far bigger talent pool for success.

peter kern

amphkingwest wrote: »

No I missed the program, heard it was very good.

His methods would seem to be all about hard work & dedication coupled with a good trainers eye for talent & detail. I would be suggesting the gadgets etc are a part of the way to successfully achieving an individuals maximum potential while stressing that they are no replacement for hard work.

Except where the individual has access to a Polar RCX5, and knows how to use it.

he dosnt really use hr and gamins and labs so you could not really suggest they are part of it. the kenayan success is much more based on very hard work while listening to your body, and they still get faster for some reason.
Interestingly like Sutton he has worked with greyhounds at some stage.
Anyway here we are most likely at the real truth. I sniff around a lot at running clubs swim clubs and I have not seen a real top coach in Ireland . though not suprised while the dundrum running club is pretty decent.
I have seen quite a few high level coaches too and there is not a single one in ireland close to the Charisma of Father Colm or Sutton.

Its also not a big suprise why In the bundesliga Dortumd beat Munich the 2nd time running for the title , with much less money then munich. they have a world class coach ( who one day might be as good as Ferguson) while bayern has an good coach that cant motivate his athletes for boring games. while they have on paper much better players and Klinsman built the most ott sport science centre when he was coaching in munich.

peter kern

The answer to this is simply the depth of the gene pool for natural selection. A huge population pool of (?) 500m versus 4m is always going to produce a far bigger talent pool for success.[/QUOTE]

Ps i think you misunderstood me I said both and Ireland and the Us had a much higher level of sub 2,30 Marathon runner than nowa days .( i guess thats where tunney comes in with his remarks and x labs.
besides new zealnd with 4 m people will most likely have 6 atheltes in triathlon at the olympics while the USA with 300 m inhabitants will have 5. Interestingly New zealand also had one of the tri coach wizzards in john hellermans .that built up some of the best programs in triathlon.

sconhome

peter kern wrote: »

Its also not a big suprise why In the bundesliga Dortumd beat Munich the 2nd time running for the title , with much less money then munich. they have a world class coach ( who one day might be as good as Ferguson) while bayern has an good coach that cant motivate his athletes for boring games. while they have on paper much better players and Klinsman built the most ott sport science centre when he was coaching in munich.

Bundesliga, Dortmund & Munich are these German triathletes?

peter kern

tunney wrote: »

Taken as a suppository.......

dave stop it you had me already spit my tea twice today ;-)

but I still dodnt get the ford joke

tunney

peter kern wrote: »

he dosnt really use hr and gamins and labs so you could not really suggest they are part of it. the kenayan success is much more based on very hard work while listening to your body, and they still get faster for some reason.
Interestingly like Sutton he has worked with greyhounds at some stage.

One could argue that the kenyan success is more based on the practice of throwing eggs against the wall. Throw enough eggs against the wall and eventually one won't break.

Similarly throw enough Kenyans at uber hard training, eventually you'll find some that won't get broken and there ya go - a world beater. As AK touched on its the motivation thats required - in Kenyan Elite runners can support themselves and their extended families. In Western countries Elite runners get supported by their families.

TriWazza

peter kern wrote: »

the gadgets and science are part of the toolbox to working smarter in the longer term.

have you seen the documentary about brother colm?
It sound like he did not really have that much of an idea about times hr etc.
But he sees a lot with his eyes and just by looking at his athletes, and the way he works with them is amazing.

Yeah I saw that alright - I think it alludes to a number of key points often ignored by sports scientists and coaches alike and that's the importance of functional movement and also the person behind the athlete - I think in triathlon circles Darren Smith may be a head of the game.

peter kern

tunney wrote: »

One could argue that the kenyan success is more based on the practice of throwing eggs against the wall. Throw enough eggs against the wall and eventually one won't break.

Similarly throw enough Kenyans at uber hard training, eventually you'll find some that won't get broken and there ya go - a world beater. As AK touched on its the motivation thats required - in Kenyan Elite runners can support themselves and their extended families. In Western countries Elite runners get supported by their families.

pretty much every federation throws eggs against the wall thats elite sport and Darwinism poor

and your 2nd point supposrts my point nicely that its not about sport science its about motivation ;-)
so far nobody really has made a point for science ;-) ;-)

peter kern

TriWazza wrote: »

Yeah I saw that alright - I think it alludes to a number of key points often ignored by sports scientists and coaches alike and that's the importance of functional movement and also the person behind the athlete - I think in triathlon circles Darren Smith may be a head of the game.

and isnt if funney how DR. Smith through out power meter dosnt care about lab testing .......

sconhome

peter kern wrote: »

so far nobody really has made a point for science

If fairness, where do you start?

Genetic selection from pre birth, through juvenile growth and development, having the perfect combination of cellular structures optimum haemoglobin and blood environment, perfect lung capacity, O2 capacity, cellular respiration. How do you forecast how a child is going to perfom at peak maturity? You can't.

At the end of the day its either a set of very lucky circumstances that gets the 'perfect' child interested in the sport that they are most likely to achieve most in or you are interfering with natural selection which some fellow tried in the 1940's in central Europe. It didn't go down too well.

sconhome

So to give an answer to the thread topic:

Does sports science make us slower?

Probably through (over)analysis causing paralysis.

Fazz

amphkingwest wrote: »

So to give an answer to the thread topic:

Does sports science make us slower?

Probably through (over)analysis causing paralysis.

Took the words right out of my mouth.
I was an over thinker but gradually have managed to reduce that thankfully.
Training is definitely more enjoyable as a result.

Peter is quite a promoter of the training/work doing the talking, and no need for these gadgets/power meters etc as they aren't going to make you faster.
It's you that can do that.

I would add one footnote though.

I believe the use of some gadgets at some times is a great tool to accurately monitor or gauge an athletes conditions and areas of improvement.

Yes a good coach may be able to understand exactly what an athlete needs from working closely with them and paying attention, but similarly in some cases the observation of a HR or Watt levels at certain intensities or durations can no doubt speed up the progress and enable the coach and/or athlete to then train more effectively.

I do absolutely agree that these gadgets should only be tools used on occasion or for a small % of the time.
It's nice to track all this info, but the only way to improve is by doing the work - be it easy, medium and hard, to improve each athlete in the areas they need improvements in most.


Over-analysis seems to remove some of the enjoyment factor, training itself should always be a high or enjoyable experience in my opinion.
Yes we have days where we feel like crap, or are slower in the pool etc, but this is all understandable due to tiredness or whatever and still shouldn't remove the enjoyment factor I think.
At least that's my approach anyway.

peter kern

you start by saying that it is proven that only people that have a power meter, do regular testing and a hr rate monitor can win hawaii for example.
ok fair enough you cant say this as it is not true ;-)


So far all i hear is genetics , life conditions etc create performance,( and there is a very good point made with this in marathon running that with the kenyans dominating running it has become harder for europeans to make a living while for the africans this is often the only way to make money ) then there is talent Identification and support structure, culture.
not a single person told me actually the advantages of sport science yet there is a lot of talk about which power meter or hr monitor to buy yet very little talk why does one want to buy it

it seems like that a lot of beginners are made to believe that you cant train those days without those gadgets and that they are the magic clue to success. when they are not. and if you have a 310 or 910 gamin is not going to make you faster in my mind. ( of course placebo is proven to work ... ;-)

I am the very last person to say that sport science dosnt work. and of course with so many parameters no one could prove anything.

An Article i read many years ago and some month ago by doc councilman (swimming coach legend)
said you give a sport psychologist a sport scientist and a strenght coach a group of decent swimmers the sport psychologist will always win.

yet on forums we all talk about sexy gear.....

I like the fact that somebody mentioned we are over analyzing this ;-)

Iam suprised nobody has mentioned torbjen simbdale who did fantastic stuff to find out how he could be faster in hawaii. Quite possibly some of the real PB performances done at Hawaii. And science played a huge factor there.
for age grouper that dodnt have the time to acclimatize in hawaii he did quite a favor for in my mind.

peter kern

amphkingwest wrote: »

So to give an answer to the thread topic:

Does sports science make us slower?

Probably through (over)analysis causing paralysis.

heck I did not see this post. but I would have loved to put it into 1 phrase like you did. and i|am v willing to say that I could be a better coach focusing more on sport science. But there is so much else to learn yet ........

tunney

amphkingwest wrote: »

So to give an answer to the thread topic:

Does sports science make us slower?

Probably through (over)analysis causing paralysis.

Team Sky............

RedB

tunney wrote: »

All you need to know is where your towel is

tunney wrote: »

A paraphrasing of the infamous Ford Prefect

(note they may not have been popular in German)

peter kern wrote: »

dave stop it you had me already spit my tea twice today ;-)

but I still dodnt get the ford joke

Ford Perfect is the main character in the classic Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy which also gave as its the most excellent advice - DON'T PANIC

Larry Brent

peter kern wrote: »

it seems like that a lot of beginners are made to believe that you cant train those days without those gadgets and that they are the magic clue to success. when they are not. and if you have a 310 or 910 gamin is not going to make you faster in my mind. ( of course placebo is proven to work ... ;-)

.

The thread title is misleading. The problem, or issue you have is with gadgets, not sports science.

tunney

peter kern wrote: »

you start by saying that it is proven that only people that have a power meter, do regular testing and a hr rate monitor can win hawaii for example.
ok fair enough you cant say this as it is not true ;-)


So far all i hear is genetics , life conditions etc create performance,( and there is a very good point made with this in marathon running that with the kenyans dominating running it has become harder for europeans to make a living while for the africans this is often the only way to make money ) then there is talent Identification and support structure, culture.
not a single person told me actually the advantages of sport science yet there is a lot of talk about which power meter or hr monitor to buy yet very little talk why does one want to buy it

it seems like that a lot of beginners are made to believe that you cant train those days without those gadgets and that they are the magic clue to success. when they are not. and if you have a 310 or 910 gamin is not going to make you faster in my mind. ( of course placebo is proven to work ... ;-)

I am the very last person to say that sport science dosnt work. and of course with so many parameters no one could prove anything.

An Article i read many years ago and some month ago by doc councilman (swimming coach legend)
said you give a sport psychologist a sport scientist and a strenght coach a group of decent swimmers the sport psychologist will always win.

yet on forums we all talk about sexy gear.....

I like the fact that somebody mentioned we are over analyzing this ;-)

Iam suprised nobody has mentioned torbjen simbdale who did fantastic stuff to find out how he could be faster in hawaii. Quite possibly some of the real PB performances done at Hawaii. And science played a huge factor there.
for age grouper that dodnt have the time to acclimatize in hawaii he did quite a favor for in my mind.

Sports science can indeed make us faster. I think the question is better phrased "does it make you faster?" Its all in the application of the science.

Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put one in a fruit salad.

sconhome

tunney wrote: »

Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is knowing not to put one in a fruit salad.

Should try it, it's the new beetroot.

sconhome

peter kern wrote: »

you start by saying that it is proven that only people that have a power meter, do regular testing and a hr rate monitor can win hawaii for example.
ok fair enough you cant say this as it is not true ;-)
....

Re the post, I agree that many people think gadgets are a shortcut to success. At some point we all thought that to be so and only realised after dropping 2-3k on super wheels (that made 2 mins difference over 40k) that we would achieve a far greater result by shedding 2-3kg off our bodyweight first. Hardwork beats gadgets.

However the longer you are in the sport the more you realise that work begets success and the gadgets are simply a measuring device that helps with efficiency of work - thus why I refer to them as being in the toolbox.

peter kern

Larry Brent wrote: »

The thread title is misleading. The problem, or issue you have is with gadgets, not sports science.

I think i do not have an issue with gadgets at all.
I have an issue how we use those gadgets somebody who follows this thread and send me this message

[I heard a great interview with Paul Huddle years ago. He said swims sets like 50 * 50ms on the 1min repeated every siongle week work. But you can't sell that **** to people. Thats not "sexy" people want something new & exciting each session. Same with cycling, listen to Norman Stadler back in the day, he had his easy & hard sessions. Now people want the coach who did a few tris & is now BTA Level 2! "He has me doing 20mins W/u then strides into Z2" etc

I think the above is my real issue ........

dave I like your tomato comment !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Larry Brent

peter kern wrote: »

I think i do not have an issue with gadgets at all.
I have an issue how we use those gadgets somebody who follows this thread and send me this message

[I heard a great interview with Paul Huddle years ago. He said swims sets like 50 * 50ms on the 1min repeated every siongle week work. But you can't sell that **** to people. Thats not "sexy" people want something new & exciting each session. Same with cycling, listen to Norman Stadler back in the day, he had his easy & hard sessions. Now people want the coach who did a few tris & is now BTA Level 2! "He has me doing 20mins W/u then strides into Z2" etc

I think the above is my real issue ........

dave I like your tomato comment !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And what has that got to do with sports science? It reads like it's more of an issue of people at best wanting variety, at worst overcomplicating things? How has that got anything to do with sports science? Thread title is misleading...

littlemsfickle

Ah sports science, is that the new thing now is it? Doesn't this just mean applying what we know from disciplines such as physiology to improve athletic performance? It doesn't have to mean gadgets and lab testing...I think it would be incorrect to say that an experienced coach who understands the abilities of their athletes and tailors their training to maximise their potential is not applying a scientific method.

Also aren't the gadgets useful tools for the self-trained athlete who doesn't have the benefit of a coach to guide their training?

peter kern

Larry Brent wrote: »

And what has that got to do with sports science? It reads like it's more of an issue of people at best wanting variety, at worst overcomplicating things? How has that got anything to do with sports science? Thread title is misleading...

All I am saying is that it is a fact that marathon runners are slower now than 1985 and I do not really believe that this is entirely based on all (especially Irish) Marathon runners being on drugs .

In 1985 sport science what ever that definition actually is was definitely not as advacned as it is today. in every aspect ( the basics of running one could say are know since the mid 60s )
So I am not quite sure how this is misleading. But please do explain me better so i can see where you are comming from.

nobody so far really has disputed that the advancement in technology ( which always claims to have been scientifically developed and is therefore a part in sport science in my mind ) is indispensable to run fast .

Tunney suggested many use technology wrongly.
And I totally agree with that ( i remember very clearly the coresspondence with rappstar where an Irish triathlete totally lost his marbles before an ironamn wheather to use a disc or an 808 wheel
(when the killer was to even think about that so close before the race .....)

If you would be happier to change the subject into does technology make us slower I am cool with that I would actually admit that is a better title for it . But I admit i did not ask what i wanted to hear.
But I thought if I provoke I have a better chance to get answers, (and as usually the best answers i got offline so I am already quite happy with my " missleading" question ;-)
I already learned a few things. and if 1 or 2 people learned a bit from my question I would be happy, too.
Thanks to the guys that contacted me, very much appreciated !!!!!!

sconhome

Define what is meant by 'sports science' and it may be a lot easier to discuss.

To me sports science is the understanding of the biochemical processes within the body and how to use or abuse them to a performance related gain.

Using sports technology which is derived from the scientific world for use by the average sports person does not imply an understanding of how it works, simply "it works therefore I use it" seems to be more the case.

I don't think anyone is arguing that using technology solely will make anyone faster but the general concept that over reliance on technology will more likely hinder progress than provide measureable results.

Sports science lets you know that consuming beetroot or spinach will increase compounds in the blood stream that helps the blood carry increased oxygen. But an understanding of the biochemical processes will tell you that you must chew the beetroot or spinach to get the result you are looking for, as the process starts with chemical reactions in the mouth.

I would suggest (leaving the non-issue of doping aside) that the success in the 80's is more a result of hard work and dedication to the sport with, possibly, less stressful work and life environments by the standards of today, which are causing fatique etc. in current athletes.

If we read less, analyse less, spend less time on boards and train more we will do better

peter kern

"it works therefore I use it"

in your context, its as truthful as the statement as diet coke is good for you, as coke would like you to believe. or in fact most diet products.
and many people will tell you diet coke is healthy.....because it has hardly any calories , but you pay for this with other aspects . (which are hidden and you also pay a price with Hr monitors garmins etc )


there is always a pro and con for everything.And one needs to find out individuality if the cons outweigh the pros.

obvioulsy the" buy me' industry spends much more money than the" that works and gets real results" industry spends on marketing.

Its not that easy to sell healthy water. but I am quite sure that water gets better results than coke and diet coke. ( and naturally ther is a time when coke can be indispensable and even diet coke can be useful)
I hope that makes a bit of sense.

littlemsfickle

peter kern wrote: »

"it works therefore I use it"

in your context, its as truthful as the statement as diet coke is good for you, as coke would like you to believe. or in fact most diet products.
and many people will tell you diet coke is healthy.....because it has hardly any calories , but you pay for this with other aspects . (which are hidden and you also pay a price with Hr monitors garmins etc )


there is always a pro and con for everything.And one needs to find out individuality if the cons outweigh the pros.

obvioulsy the" buy me' industry spends much more money than the" that works and gets real results" industry spends on marketing.

Its not that easy to sell healthy water. but I am quite sure that water gets better results than coke and diet coke. ( and naturally ther is a time when coke can be indispensable and even diet coke can be useful)
I hope that makes a bit of sense.

Yeah...you're telling me that if I drink diet coke I'll go faster right?

sconhome

peter kern wrote: »

"it works therefore I use it"

in your context, its as truthful as the statement as diet coke is good for you, as coke would like you to believe. or in fact most diet products.
and many people will tell you diet coke is healthy.....because it has hardly any calories , but you pay for this with other aspects . (which are hidden and you also pay a price with Hr monitors garmins etc )

I think there is actual agreement here throughout. My point is that a thread on sports science became (very quickly) a sports technology issue and now borders on psychology where (through marketing or simply laziness) people become over-reliant on the technology side of things to tell them how fit they are.

Just because some watch tells you your VO2 estimation is 'Elite' does not mean you are elite. You have to work very hard to achieve this standard.

peter kern

As for science........ got me thinking a bit and caused a small bain storm and getting a bit away from the gadget side ;-)

First the primary goal in sport is faster higher further.

not achieved in irish marathon runing.......

Science tries to find rational explanations how and why something works in a rational way based on evidence. gadgets are part of this in my mind. as they try to create facts.

the arts tries to show or give explanation to all kind of activities, which is much more personal, and emotional not always rational. But from the arts we can see and find the motivation and inspiration of doing things and how we function.
or what one poster manged to put into one sentence saying that
dr smith tries to see the person behind the athlete .....as we all tick differently.
In every scientific test you will see different people react differently to the tests )

What science and the late economists often forget to account for ( and some would suggest this is why the economy is in such turmoil right now) is that human beings dont work like a computer that calculates everything rational, human beings also act with emotions ,fear , euphoria, greed etc .
and those emotions you cant calculate with Hr monitors etc etc.
Yet its those emotions that often get in the way of performance.
( prime examples are Ferando Torres this year and Tiger woods )
and in other cases really help to perform when people should not perform .

In sport and the economy we are and have been in a time where we give the rational side too much importance , and try to put everything into graphs, at least thats what I try to suggest in this thread, forgetting that there is more to it than we can see in graphs in fact much more to it.

Like in marathon running, we could almost argue that we where better off in the 80s at least on the continent in western europe. In the last 25 or so years we have tried to rationalize everything forgetting a bit the human emotional side and and just did not account for the greed of people that place their own well being ahead of the whole society ( we have been there before....)

Those aspects create the yo yo issus we are currently in .
so we were all looking at charts how the econnomy works but totally forgot the emotional side till it all exploded......
in sport its the last hard session before a race , not taking rest when we dodnt feel good , finishing a session when we should not push 400 watts when we should not. all this gadgets cant tell you when this is the most important aspect one needs to know. or the gadgets can tell you but we dont listen......

Science has a hard time to explain that why female Ironman has shoot up so massively in the last few years and what happend was there was a girl who had a coach that thinks outside the box and said the limit of a female is not 9 hours its bellow 8.30
and now suddently all the girls had to follow that girl. .
We had the same with the 4 minute mile .
In Irish marathon running when there was a group of good runners they pushed each other.( far more arts than science )
and I predict the same with irish Ironman where many people will say I used to beat Owen Martin if he can go sub nine I will go sub 9 where before Irish people thought that 9 hours is the limit of the Universe .



I hope maybe it becomes a bit clearer what my thinking is- with many flaws and errors- and its really not anti science its more a more balanced approach of the art and science, i believe in.

peter kern

littlemsfickle wrote: »

Yeah...you're telling me that if I drink diet coke I'll go faster right?

you have studied psychology and i would assume you understand how marketing works and how it uses emotions. and in your med studies iam sure you talk about what a good job the pharma industry lobby does.

you would actually have the knowledge to contribute expertise to this thread.as you should have a good knowledge on the placebo effect too.

peter kern

amphkingwest wrote: »

I think there is actual agreement here throughout. My point is that a thread on sports science became (very quickly) a sports technology issue and now borders on psychology where (through marketing or simply laziness) people become over-reliant on the technology side of things to tell them how fit they are.

Just because some watch tells you your VO2 estimation is 'Elite' does not mean you are elite. You have to work very hard to achieve this standard.

every thread should be about how to become a better athlete ;-0

so if those watches tell us nonsense why would one buy it ....

Just because some watch tells you your VO2 estimation is 'Elite' does not mean you are elite. You have to work very hard to achieve this standard.[/QUOTE] your quote not mine

littlemsfickle

peter kern wrote: »

you have studied psychology and i would assume you understand how marketing works and how it uses emotions. and in your med studies iam sure you talk about what a good job the pharma industry lobby does.

you would actually have the knowledge to contribute expertise to this thread.as you should have a good knowledge on the placebo effect too.

Yeah...I don't really know if the placebo effect applies in this case - does anybody think that they're going to go faster just because they've strapped on the newest Garmin? It just gives you feedback on how hard you're working - the figures don't lie, if you don't put in the effort your heart rate or whatever measure you're using will reflect that. Same for the lab testing - it just gives you an insight into your physical potential as an athlete - realising that potential still requires hard work.