does sport science make us slower ???

LCD

I think a good study in Sports Science is looking at Eddy Merckx's hour record set in Mexico City in 1972. Chris Boardman broke the record by 10ms in Mancherster in 2000. Boardman used equipment very similar to Mecrkx, as was competing in the "Athletes Record".

Everyone knows Boardman is a huge believer in Sports Science, but so was Mercx. About the record he said "Regarding specialised training, I did all that I could. I consulted sports doctors, who had experience with sport at altitude, because I did my record in Mexico City. I trained on the home trainer with an oxygen mask, breathing the same mixture of air that I would find at altitude. I also used all of the best equipment that was available to me".

Prior to his record in October Merckx had won the Giro, Tour & 4 classics that season & was at the peak of his poweress. Boardman was at the end of his career & would imagine he had not followed as demanding a schedule that season.

Merckx was on an outdoor track, but at altitude. Boardman on a more modern indoor, wooden track. Track design can have a huge influence on speed.

Few would argue against the fact that Merckx was the greatest cyclist ever & considerably more talented than Boardman.

So where did Boardman get the extra 10ms over Merckx? Was it due to his use of better sports science, most likely the advent of power meters? Better training techniques? Or did a guy who was retiring after the event, in front of his home crowd dig deeper? Boardman knew how far he had to go, Merckx didn't as he destroyed the previous record. An interesting comparison!

peter kern

littlemsfickle wrote: »

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.

the figures can lie and do lie.


and sometimes rest is better than hard work

peter kern

out of interest what was merckx 4000 m pursuit best time compared to boardman ?
Also you would know more about this, if i have the best pool swimmer racing against a prety good open water swimmer my money goes on the open water swimmer if its an open water race in the ocean.
so how does boardman as a track specialiced compare with mercks in that aspect. is a track specialist at an advantage ?(i know merckx was good on the track as he beat your dad ;-0

tunney

peter kern wrote: »

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

Actually no Peter, sports science doesn't in any way struggle with this at all. At all.

YOUR application of sports science, the science YOU read, and the interpretation YOU put on it may struggle.

peter kern

great show me the papers that talk about it .

Btw iam quite surprised you know what i read ;-) did your tea leaf reading tell you what i read ;-)

tunney

peter kern wrote: »

great show me the papers that talk about it .

right back at you. show me one peer reviewed paper that said "we cannot explain this"

peter kern

thats cheap, iam the guy in this thread that says science makes us slower ;-) I have given away more than i should.
you have so far only provided (funny ) one liners.

may I add very good 1 liners.

sconhome

So much depends on how you apply sports science.

You mentioned econmoics before and that reminded me of a thought I was looking for previously. Globalization is probably the biggest factor to do with results and times. International competition is so much easier now and athletes have a much broader access to knowledge and experience than the would have had 30 years ago.

I again agree with you about the point of sub 9 hours but this is more to do with psychology and believing that a sub 9 hour is possible before being able to train to achieve it.

Look at the 4 minute mile. It was impossible until it was done.

Athletes don't necessarily need to understand how or why science works. They just need to be able to trust that their coach knows what they are talking about and to use their technological aids to provide measurement and feedback.

If you don't use a coach then you need to have some understanding of the science (nutrition, mechanics etc) behind it and be more reliant on your own gadgets to help measure and benchmark your performance.

Its all important.

tunney

peter kern wrote: »

thats cheap, iam the guy in this thread that says science makes us slower ;-) I have given away more than i should.
you have so far only provided (funny ) one liners.

may I add very good 1 liners.

I was going to say that you had not put forward any research, any papers, or even a poster of work that supports your stance. However that would be me looking for scientific support for an unscientific argument.

I'm not going to spend my morning digging up research to support my points when clearly the protaganist of this thread has his convictions firmly rooted in the unscientific! Would be like using arguments of faith and the teachings of the catholic church to try and convince Richard Dawkins that...... well anything.

I am enjoying this thread very much though.

peter kern

Qoute

"Athletes don't necessarily need to understand how or why science works. They just need to be able to trust that their coach knows what they are talking about and to use their technological aids to provide measurement and feedback."


I would argue its often extremely important that the athletes understand themselves. coached or non coached. knowledge is power. to know the bits that gets results it is the crucial bit. and tri magazines do a fantastic job to lead people on the wrong track .

some people learn how they work with gadgets other dont. some work well with a coach some dont . but we can not say that everybody needs this and that. It so much depends on the personality, background of the person etc


Qoute

"You mentioned econmoics before and that reminded me of a thought I was looking for previously. Globalization is probably the biggest factor to do with results and times. International competition is so much easier now and athletes have a much broader access to knowledge and experience than the would have had 30 years ago."

and I keep repeating myself Irish Marathon runnner are slower than they were and maybe the solutions are very very close to them and not in Kenya.

peter kern

tunney wrote: »

Actually no Peter, sports science doesn't in any way struggle with this at all. At all.

YOUR application of sports science, the science YOU read, and the interpretation YOU put on it may struggle.

funny I just got an email which might be helpful for you.

In answer to XXXX, we are reliant upon such anecdotal information and experiences because there has been no such research done which reflects the needs of our society, something which impacts upon this greatly. All xxx Sport funded bodies must have an LTAD process in place which they accept; their benchmark is the work which was done by Istvan Balyi, which itself it transpires (without detracting from its content) was heavily reliant upon 'evidence' gathered from cross country skiing in xxx. Given that xxxx has hardly been a production line of World Class talent for the last decade if not more, we began to challenge aspects of the Model developed for our sport as despite us becoming highly successful in World terms since the debacle of Athens

tunney

peter kern wrote: »

funny I just got an email which might be helpful for you.

In answer to XXXX, we are reliant upon such anecdotal information and experiences because there has been no such research done which reflects the needs of our society, something which impacts upon this greatly. All xxx Sport funded bodies must have an LTAD process in place which they accept; their benchmark is the work which was done by Istvan Balyi, which itself it transpires (without detracting from its content) was heavily reliant upon 'evidence' gathered from cross country skiing in xxx. Given that xxxx has hardly been a production line of World Class talent for the last decade if not more, we began to challenge aspects of the Model developed for our sport as despite us becoming highly successful in World terms since the debacle of Athens

Strangely as I am not defending the indefensible I do not need help

peter kern

.

Larry Brent

peter kern wrote: »

All I am saying is that it is a fact that marathon runners are slower now than 1985 !

And your argument is that this is due to 'sports science'?

You need to elaborate on this, explain your rationale behind this opinion. Only then will people be able to offer counter arguments. But as it stands, without you giving any reasoning behind this opinion it is as Tunney said absurd.

couerdelion

Nobody can really argue against the statement regarding marathon runners in Ireland being slower now than they were in the 80's but you can't put the blame at the feet of Sports Science.

Whilst sports science can explain the reasoning behind and steer people in the right direction in regards to training it's not a panacea for poor genetics / work ethic. May be sports science can explain why Alaistar Cragg isn't currently the marathon record holder and John Treacy's record still stands as opposed to making him faster.

Power meters / HRM etc can help us train smarter but we still have to be prepared to put the work in. It also helps us to prevent injury by working in the right zones. I've just finished reading the Coe & Ovett book and they seemed to get a fair share of injury from running hard most of the time. Regardless they both were pushing each other on to higher and faster running.

tunney

peter kern wrote: »

I agree you have to figure out how to drink form a cup and need to foucs on that.

Sorry Peter I cannot let you away with editing that comment away. Thats one of the funniest things you've said in a long time.

Funny, but sad for me as i really really struggle with it. Its harder than it looks.

Notwitch

tunney wrote: »

Sorry Peter I cannot let you away with editing that comment away. Thats one of the funniest things you've said in a long time.

Funny, but sad for me as i really really struggle with it. Its harder than it looks.

The irony of this is that if your Garmin hadn't been beeping every 19.5 minutes you probably would have walked every 2nd aid station instead and actually drunk some water...

tunney

Notwitch wrote: »

The irony of this is that if your Garmin hadn't been beeping every 19.5 minutes you probably would have walked every 2nd aid station instead and actually drunk some water...

LOL.

It was a Polar

But yes, I was trying to get my 5km splits, manage my run walk breaks strictly to schedule and that meant drinking on the run. Which I can't do from cups, so I didn't.

Yes in this case technology is the enemy. Or at least my application of technology.

Certainly no science there though

sconhome

Notwitch wrote: »

The irony of this is that if your Garmin hadn't been beeping every 19.5 minutes you probably would have walked every 2nd aid station instead and actually drunk some water...

tunney wrote: »

LOL.

It was a Polar

I was going to suggest that this was the reason for more than x4 phases being needed in the RCX5...

peter kern

Larry Brent wrote: »

And your argument is that this is due to 'sports science'?

You need to elaborate on this, explain your rationale behind this opinion. Only then will people be able to offer counter arguments. But as it stands, without you giving any reasoning behind this opinion it is as Tunney said absurd.

if its that absurd, you could explain me why my reasoning is so wrong
just saying its absurd dosnt really contribute to anything, I feel .

peter kern

tunney wrote: »

Sorry Peter I cannot let you away with editing that comment away. Thats one of the funniest things you've said in a long time.

Funny, but sad for me as i really really struggle with it. Its harder than it looks.

so if the prophet dosnt come to the mountain the mountain has to come to the prophet.

I would not even try to learn to drink from a cup. I would find other ways
they could be a camel back and another one in special needs for the 2nd run ( if you freeze them overnight and have them in a cool box they can even work as a cooling system.

they could be that you hide 0.5 liter water bottles on the course ( I tell my athletes to tape them on road signs so they dodnt have to bend down.

you could have a freind at aid stations nobody is going to say anything if you have somebody handing you out bottles .

sconhome

Peter, what do you think is the problem? Why are they slower?

Is it not that because of more competition from outside that Irish elite athletes are finding other areas where they excel more, leaving a smaller group of marathon runners to chase the dreams?

Looking up the Dublin marathon information I see Dick Hooper won in 1986 5 minutes slower than his winning time in 1985. Is this not weather / course related? Has the route changed? Are you referring to all marathons in Ireland or using the times in Dublin are representative to support the argument?

tunney

peter kern wrote: »

so if the prophet dosnt come to the mountain the mountain has to come to the prophet.

I would not even try to learn to drink from a cup. I would find other ways
they could be a camel back and another one in special needs for the 2nd run ( if you freeze them overnight and have them in a cool box they can even work as a cooling system.

they could be that you hide 0.5 liter water bottles on the course ( I tell my athletes to tape them on road signs so they dodnt have to bend down.

you could have a freind at aid stations nobody is going to say anything if you have somebody handing you out bottles .

I have no friends

peter kern

couerdelion wrote: »

Nobody can really argue against the statement regarding marathon runners in Ireland being slower now than they were in the 80's but you can't put the blame at the feet of Sports Science.

Whilst sports science can explain the reasoning behind and steer people in the right direction in regards to training it's not a panacea for poor genetics / work ethic. May be sports science can explain why Alaistar Cragg isn't currently the marathon record holder and John Treacy's record still stands as opposed to making him faster.

Power meters / HRM etc can help us train smarter but we still have to be prepared to put the work in. It also helps us to prevent injury by working in the right zones. I've just finished reading the Coe & Ovett book and they seemed to get a fair share of injury from running hard most of the time. Regardless they both were pushing each other on to higher and faster running.

and again hr monitors and powermeter can only calculate what you do in few hours of the day thay dont see the big picture of 24 hours
so they can be also missleading in triathlon .
doing the right session on the wrong day ... dosnt help that much
the same with TSS scores ...... if they dont calculate 24 hours pretty much a waste of time.

tunney

peter kern wrote: »

and again hr monitors and powermeter can only calculate what you do in few hours of the day thay dont see the big picture of 24 hours
so they can be also missleading in triathlon .
doing the right session on the wrong day ... dosnt help that much
the same with TSS scores ...... if they dont calculate 24 hours pretty much a waste of time.

I somewhat agree with peter. Not on the power meter and hr (zones obtained during field tests during normal life should always be valid during normal life, one of the reasons I dislike lab tests).

However I agree on the TSS aspect. I don't use it, and I recommend against its use. A TSS/ATL/CTL of xyz for someone who is single and on the dole sitting at home versus a father of 5 with a 60hour work week mean two different things.

BennyMul

amphkingwest wrote: »

Peter, what do you think is the problem? Why are they slower?

Is it not that because of more competition from outside that Irish elite athletes are finding other areas where they excel more, leaving a smaller group of marathon runners to chase the dreams?

Looking up the Dublin marathon information I see Dick Hooper won in 1986 5 minutes slower than his winning time in 1985. Is this not weather / course related? Has the route changed? Are you referring to all marathons in Ireland or using the times in Dublin are representative to support the argument?

Can we use Irish Marathon times to argure this thread,
considering the w.r. is slowly dropping?:o

my 2cents and sorry for coming in late.

Sports science continuously evolves as our understanding of the human body evolves.
What we learn from this is how the body reacts to certain loads\stresses and conditions and this help remove the guess work.

If we look at training methods over the past 20years (I have to use the bike here sorry) when I started it was miles\miles and more miles during the winter and during the season every training session was a “race” this left you shattered for the actual race.
Compare this to modern theories, it is severely different.
Removing the “assistance”;) from the equation and athletes are fitter\faster and healthier.
Come back in 10years and these methods will have changed again.

My only disagreement with science is it is traditionally done in the lab, and does not take into account the athletes desire to win during competition, which is where it all counts ?

Larry Brent

peter kern wrote: »

if its that absurd, you could explain me why my reasoning is so wrong
just saying its absurd dosnt really contribute to anything, I feel .

You stated that Irish marathon times are slower than 20 years ago. And that this is due to sports science. But you didn't establish any link between the two! You are the OP - you need to establish this link and perhaps then people will come back with replies! As it stands people don't know what the question is, IMO.

Put forward an argument as to why advances in sports science have resulted in slower marathon times and then people will have something to discuss.

shels4ever

Larry Brent wrote: »

You stated that Irish marathon times are slower than 20 years ago. And that this is due to sports science. But you didn't establish any link between the two! You are the OP - you need to establish this link and perhaps then people will come back with replies! As it stands people don't know what the question is, IMO.

Put forward an argument as to why advances in sports science have resulted in slower marathon times and then people will have something to discuss.

Sport science must be the reason for increased obesity over the years also.
This thread is funny I like Tunneys post about knowelage/tomato etc, the whole thing about the world today is people know more and do less. Sport science can tell you where you go wrong but if your sitting on your backside 10 horus a day your not going to improve.

hf4z6sqo7vjngi

tunney wrote: »

A TSS/ATL/CTL of xyz for someone who is single and on the dole sitting at home versus a father of 5 with a 60hour work week mean two different things.

Very true whilst i use PMC on TPeaks i do not focus on it as much as i used to. Take example last week whilst away my TSS/ATL/CTL was at an all time high since i started tracking it and I finished the week well. Throw in 4 kids, life/work stuff and i would be a broken mess this week.

External factors play a huge factor than just TSS on its own.

Fazz

TSS on TP is quite limited in my opinion.
It requires every single work out to have a Garmin/data file upload to calculate and this isn't always the case.

Also it barely recognises swimming - not sure if the 910xt brings it more realistic.

It can relate if everything is uploaded, and then a day or two off etc it will track recovery in the form of no new files uploaded so TSS down and form up etc.

Used to like tracking it, now moving more towards feel/work load.
My feel is still a couple days out though, often feel great at start of recovery week (mistakenly so), and swim terrible then on Monday and only really starting to recover Wednesday/Thursday.

hf4z6sqo7vjngi

Fazz wrote: »

TSS on TP is quite limited in my opinion.
It requires every single work out to have a Garmin/data file upload to calculate and this isn't always the case.

Also it barely recognises swimming - not sure if the 910xt brings it more realistic.

It can relate if everything is uploaded, and then a day or two off etc it will track recovery in the form of no new files uploaded so TSS down and form up etc.

Used to like tracking it, now moving more towards feel/work load.
My feel is still a couple days out though, often feel great at start of recovery week (mistakenly so), and swim terrible then on Monday and only really starting to recover Wednesday/Thursday.

I load all sessions onto TPeaks but your right they have not mastered sTSS yet. I am not getting too hung up on the figures as i used to. Going more so by feel lately and the fact i left my HRM in Barcelona the last few weeks efforts have been based on RPE and wattage for the bike. I now also factor in stuff outside of training which can have a huge bearing on training and how tired/motivated you can feel.
I am a stats nerd at heart but i am trying not to get too hung up on all the numbers/graphs.

peter kern

amphkingwest wrote: »

Peter, what do you think is the problem? Why are they slower?

Is it not that because of more competition from outside that Irish elite athletes are finding other areas where they excel more, leaving a smaller group of marathon runners to chase the dreams?

Looking up the Dublin marathon information I see Dick Hooper won in 1986 5 minutes slower than his winning time in 1985. Is this not weather / course related? Has the route changed? Are you referring to all marathons in Ireland or using the times in Dublin are representative to support the argument?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2011/1029/1224306728877.html

thats a good basic article to start with me thinks. It has been a few years I really looked into this so I write from memory. what i thought the reason are ( and you could say its going already in a better direction at the moment)

the kenyans are surely part of the problem but than i would argue that ryan hall is most likely one of the top 3 earners in manrathon running and not in the top 20 of the fastest runners so if you are the best runner in your country runing 2.07 you can make money.




times weather course all can change but the statistics over 25 years dont lie. and there have historically been v few kenyans in dublin as the price money is to low , and most dublin winner are "white' athletes ( changeing a bit lately )
and to run a sub 2.20 marathon you dont need to be pro you can do that with a full time job.

also I believe at one stage the dublin Marathon was almost dead and those races are v important for the Pyramide. big base helps to have a wider top .

talent Id, triathlon Ireland is building up a real good talent id system now and that will show in a few years. so talent id has cetainly been a big part.

the coaching can be a case (controversially) all 3 seletecd kenyans for the marathon olympics are coached by renato canova who says he dostn waste his time ( he actually says it this way ;-) to work with european as they dodnt have the drive. He did coach stefano baldini to olympic gold.

what happens on lets run the people make fun of his english rather than actually listen to what he has to say......

while the marathon mission cant change the lack that might be in the youth sport, training in a team is a good thing and many would argue the main reason while Sutton and the here mentioned Darren smith are so successful is becasue of that . I would say its also the reason while belpark is a decent tri club ( the way they train is....( i cant find the right word to be nice) but they train in a team and push each other and motivate each other and have a good cycling program. so there is no suprise that they have good cyclists in triathlon, that club with good coaching would do very well in my mind . as they have a good base and is prob the only club in irleand where the good people of a club train togheter.

i think as for training they where more tuned into their body in the old days if you ask them to run a 3 min k they run a 3 min k without a gadged, and I think one could say they run more with a lydydard system. or a bit like run as you feel. not overy regimented in zones.
and not as many intervals as today . but they did not really know what LSD running is . but you see, in my mind I put the training as the last part as you can certainly achieve good results with interval training etc

and who knows maybe the sport scientists where better 1985 ;-) but I would doubt that .......]

of course daves point about an athlete in kenya can feed his family an athlete in irland is feeded by his family is a very good one . I think rugby would be a very good example here , as the game has been seriously lifted since it went profesional
. Its much harder to find a tri sponsor in Ireland than lets say in Austria or germany where most of the equivilant level of the guys who do very well in the nat series have actually good sponsors and get support from their tri club etc ( in Ireland only limerick tri has that)
.

course change is not that important dublin is prob only 1.45 min slower than berlin so if they change the dublin course a bit ( which they have from what i seem to remember when I really looked into that matter a few years ago )

the main point could also be x boxes people being driven to school now and as a whole we move much less . and who has the time to read a good book nowadays and todays press refelcts out attention span. and that short attention span cant bode well for marathon running.
SO I would say culture and our societiy as a whole has a huge impact.

talent as one mentioned before is not that important of course you have to be lucky to have a paula redcilff but apart from those outstanding atheltes its not the reall issue. with a 29.00 10 k time you should be able to run 2.15 marathons (redcliff did it on 29.59 so, for a male full time working male it should be a bit faster) and there is a good few there that can do it and I would say the Irish body type is quite good for marathon running. Irish naturally tend to have a solid core. I had a polish nat coach at one of my tri camps recently and he was as suprised as i how strong the Irish are in the core compared to the atheltes on the continent.( and thats a good thing for long distance and in my mind even more so for ultra running.

If somebody would volunteer to tidy that text up and make it readable I would not say no as I really just put that down in a hurry
;-)
but I would say structures are way more important than sport scienc if I have to chose between the 2 .

peter kern

tunney wrote: »

I somewhat agree with peter. Not on the power meter and hr (zones obtained during field tests during normal life should always be valid during normal life, one of the reasons I dislike lab tests).

However I agree on the TSS aspect. I don't use it, and I recommend against its use. A TSS/ATL/CTL of xyz for someone who is single and on the dole sitting at home versus a father of 5 with a 60hour work week mean two different things.

so tunney dosnt like lab tests.............
there was a time that maybe fisnihsed some 5 years ago where we tought we cant life without lab tests.

and I am just saying there could be a time where we might say power wasnt the real deal ( as we said hr wasnt the real deal) and I would say me might say this to tri rather than cycling, unless we built a swim and run powermeter ;-)

I am not saying this is true , I am just saying that whats right and waht is wrong often changes.

A good example is milk 2 years it seems to be good for you and sport than we are told its not good etc etc .

training peak certainly wants to make people believe their TSS score is fantastic .

couerdelion

Fazz wrote: »

TSS on TP is quite limited in my opinion.
It requires every single work out to have a Garmin/data file upload to calculate and this isn't always the case.

Also it barely recognises swimming - not sure if the 910xt brings it more realistic.

It can relate if everything is uploaded, and then a day or two off etc it will track recovery in the form of no new files uploaded so TSS down and form up etc.

Used to like tracking it, now moving more towards feel/work load.
My feel is still a couple days out though, often feel great at start of recovery week (mistakenly so), and swim terrible then on Monday and only really starting to recover Wednesday/Thursday.

One of the recent IMTalk podcast (No. 307) has a discussion with Paul Newsome (Swim smooth bloke) about TSS in swimming. pretty interesting.

couerdelion

peter kern wrote: »

Training in a team is a good thing and many would argue the main reason while Sutton and the here mentioned Darren smith are so successful is becasue of that . I would say its also the reason while belpark is a decent tri club ( the way they train is....( i cant find the right word to be nice) but they train in a team and push each other and motivate each other and have a good cycling program. so there is no suprise that they have good cyclists in triathlon, that club with good coaching would do very well in my mind . as they have a good base and is prob the only club in irleand where the good people of a club train togheter.

I agree but the members of the team have got to be of a similar enough level and must be able to trust the coach,stick to the prescribed effort for each session and not turn every one into a race.

Once you do that then sure, team training is (a) a lot more fun, (b) able to replicate race scenarios when needed. If something is fun you're more likely to do it. If you can train under the same conditions you race (specificity?) then you will improve.

But that's not to say that some athletes don't succeed from doing most of their training alone too. It's all about being able to find out what works for each athlete... and sports science doesn't tell you that.

tunney

http://www.facebook.com/peterkernpb3

Interesting link on this page to an interview "with Uli Schoberer, the entrepreneur and engineer who created SRM".

peter kern

It would appear that SRM could actually nicely prove if michael weiss used drugs or not. I f I had a case in not using drugs I would make my powerfiles public during the times off allegations.
I am a bit disturbed they are using a pic and naming Michael Weiss in that article.

great marketing article as one would expecet from a powermeter seller
but some really good stuff in there.

peter kern

it seems we all agree that their is more to this world than numbers etc.
SO I would suggest next week it would be a good idea to maybe discuss the advantages of Sport science (to keep the title a bit controversial since the title of the thread seems to pull almost as much interest than a Lance thread ;-)

suggested header
where does sport science make us faster
this time with a pic with Dave tummy pre power training ( a dark picture with a woolen sweater and a cup in his hand ) and a pic with tunney after 2 years of power training ( on a sunny day in Sexy clothing and a water bottle in his hand ;- ) .

peter kern

this was an email of one of my clients describing the difference of a retul bike bit and a bike fit.......
I am confident that this athlete would be hard to beat on bike split performance from 2011 to 2012 fit was done in oct 2011. (no hr no power no garmin)

to make it clear Iam not at all against retul ( and also retul fitter was not based in Ireland and based in Usa )


The retul fit was on a turbo trainer in the bike shop so I didn’t get a feel for cycling the bike on the road. Therefore, it was difficult to give feedback on how the bike felt to cycle or whether changes were good or bad. There is a huge emphasis on what the various sensors are picking up as regards the angles and the force going through the pedals and this educates the decisions about what to change. I probably let the computer make the decisions rather than getting particularly involved as that is what the fit seems to be about. Particularly for someone like me who is not an experienced cyclist, I found it difficult to speak up and say...this doesn’t feel right. I was happier to let the computer do the thinking. The problem that I saw was that after all of this technical tweeking and testing, when I finally got out on it, the bike was not comfortable to cycle and my balance was all off. I also developed pain in both knees after 40K so it clearly didn’t suit me at all. However, I was advised to get a follow up fit and maybe these problems could have been sorted when I returned. There is also the possibility that I am, as I have been recently described, a “bike fit nightmare!”

As regards the pb3 fit, this was much more based on feel while actually cycling and on you cycling with me observing how I was working on the bike. The end result was much more satisfying as I felt balanced on my bike and I could feel that the position suited me to push power into the pedals. I was asked to give feedback about how the bike felt while cycling and I think that resulted in things being changed in the set up so that it suited me. I felt that I had a role in giving feedback and that probably works better in deciding between various options. There is a wealth of knowledge that comes with people who’ve been around bikes and who know what to look for but you need to have absolute confidence in the person who is making the changes. So I guess the reason that people go for a retul fit or something similar is because they believe that a computer will give a more consistent result. When you are relying on someone’s eye and expertise, you need that person to be excellent at what they do and to have absolute confidence in their decisions. If you are lucky enough to know someone with that expertise (such as our resident expert in pb3!) you get a much better result as the fit responds to your needs rather than giving you a one-size-fits-all computer analysis .

mloc123

Peter, are you actively against power meters or do you think they are just unnecessary?

peter kern

i think they can be fantastic tools for some, unnecessary for some
and bad for some .
and I use power for some of my athletes.

peter kern

and to make you smile actually good for myself .

zico10

Peter, how do you decide if a PM will be good for one of your athletes?

hf4z6sqo7vjngi

zico10 wrote: »

Peter, how do you decide if a PM will be good for one of your athletes?

And does the distance they race factor in your decision in any way?

tunney

peter kern wrote: »

this was an email of one of my clients describing the difference of a retul bike bit and a bike fit.......
I am confident that this athlete would be hard to beat on bike split performance from 2011 to 2012 fit was done in oct 2011. (no hr no power no garmin)

to make it clear Iam not at all against retul ( and also retul fitter was not based in Ireland and based in Usa )


The retul fit was on a turbo trainer in the bike shop so I didn’t get a feel for cycling the bike on the road. Therefore, it was difficult to give feedback on how the bike felt to cycle or whether changes were good or bad. There is a huge emphasis on what the various sensors are picking up as regards the angles and the force going through the pedals and this educates the decisions about what to change. I probably let the computer make the decisions rather than getting particularly involved as that is what the fit seems to be about. Particularly for someone like me who is not an experienced cyclist, I found it difficult to speak up and say...this doesn’t feel right. I was happier to let the computer do the thinking. The problem that I saw was that after all of this technical tweeking and testing, when I finally got out on it, the bike was not comfortable to cycle and my balance was all off. I also developed pain in both knees after 40K so it clearly didn’t suit me at all. However, I was advised to get a follow up fit and maybe these problems could have been sorted when I returned. There is also the possibility that I am, as I have been recently described, a “bike fit nightmare!”

As regards the pb3 fit, this was much more based on feel while actually cycling and on you cycling with me observing how I was working on the bike. The end result was much more satisfying as I felt balanced on my bike and I could feel that the position suited me to push power into the pedals. I was asked to give feedback about how the bike felt while cycling and I think that resulted in things being changed in the set up so that it suited me. I felt that I had a role in giving feedback and that probably works better in deciding between various options. There is a wealth of knowledge that comes with people who’ve been around bikes and who know what to look for but you need to have absolute confidence in the person who is making the changes. So I guess the reason that people go for a retul fit or something similar is because they believe that a computer will give a more consistent result. When you are relying on someone’s eye and expertise, you need that person to be excellent at what they do and to have absolute confidence in their decisions. If you are lucky enough to know someone with that expertise (such as our resident expert in pb3!) you get a much better result as the fit responds to your needs rather than giving you a one-size-fits-all computer analysis .

Peter, I understand exactly the point you are trying to make. Unfortunately you picked a horrific example to back it up.

Retul is not a fitting system. Retul is a fitting tool. It is a fancy tape measure. You probably used a tape measure in your fitting.

In this case it was not your intuition versus science or a system but your intuition versus someone elses intuition. Given you expertise and knowledge and experience I am not surprised that your fit was vastly superior.

However I feel that this thread has descended from a discussion on sports science to arguing about which will improve your IM time more - a PM or rubbing the purée of a squirrel's liver on your left ankle on the last night of equinox of the year.

Regarding tools - I know we are both on the same page. For some they work and for some they do not. I help people with their training, not as many as you as its not my livelihood and I've never acknowledged it until now but I do. You might find it surprising that I actually adopt a similar approach to yourself. Some train with power, some I try to not even allow look at a pool clock almost. Some response well to numbers, some are limited by them - physically and psychologically. Tools can be good, tools can be bad. As the NRA in the US love to say "Its not the gun that kills people, its the person pulling the trigger"

I remember a few years back a certain German sat off my back wheel during a duathlon, legally mind. I had a faster bike split and I believe ultimately beat him on the day. Meant nothing to him but alot to me. However the interesting bit was that this German coached a good friend of mine. The German remarked to my friend, a much stronger biker than me, that if he paced himself as well as I did he'd do alot better. I was chuffed with this comment as, as you know, I've always looked up to you, always admired your approach and successes, and indeed I've always felt that if I was coached by you that I would have huge success. Anyways enough with inflating your ego - I learnt to pace myself with a power meter. The tool works for me. My friend also had a power meter though, didn't work for him, he hates them.

Bringing it back to the original question - "why has sports science not helped?"

A story from across the water. The film Moneyball [Link - the missus wanted to watch it I knew nothing about it other than kn0b end Brad Pitt was in it. Turns out its a great film and based on a true story. Basically many years ago someone devised a way of picking a baseball team solely on numbers that would guarantee the best odds of winning the "World Series", it would also do so as cheapily as possible. This research was known about for years but never used as it went against that the coaches and experienced men of baseball knew to be true. Turns out what they knew to be true was wrong. Okay its not sports science but a science (maths) that was resisted and not applied to baseball. When it was proved to work by one team it was applied everywhere and changed how the sport is done.

I think that the impact of sports science has been similarly restricted in Ireland. Resistance from those that do not understand it and therefore fear it and as such do not apply it.

As an example of where science has been shown to help, and as I said without explaining earlier, is Team Sky. They were laughed out of it when they stated their goals and their approach in cycling. Look at them now.

Sports science, like Retul, is a tool. The understanding, interpretation and application of it are what make it work.

shotgunmcos

IMO sports science doesn't make us slower... It makes the fast faster.

X factor & popcorn anyone? :rolleyes:

peter kern

tunney wrote: »

Peter, I understand exactly the point you are trying to make. Unfortunately you picked a horrific example to back it up.

Retul is not a fitting system. Retul is a fitting tool. It is a fancy tape measure. You probably used a tape measure in your fitting.


I think thats that retul and power meter are both tools and measure tapes
and no i did not sue a messure tape . I used the athlete as a measure tape.


later more to the rest as this is great stuff.

edit and the interesting think is many people think retul is a fitting system .......... I was just tring to say here how poorly a massure tape can be used.especially if the athletes dosnt listen to its body

and in the same way how poorly a power meter can be used .

and yes leaving your club and going with power made you an athlete there is no doubt about that.
you are prob the most analyzed athelte that never has been with pb3 coaching.

peter kern

Nathalia Moldy Bather wrote: »

And does the distance they race factor in your decision in any way?

I am really struggeling to answer the first question for whom power works in less than 5000 words.....

the one thing the way I coach they are not really important , as I use other ways more ( and everything has pros and cons)
so If I feel my way dosnt work ie dosnt get the results I want, than I look around what else can be done.

fact is there is world class tri coaches that use power and world class coaches that dont use power. ANd Mr Srm did not have much beef in his article for power yesterday. great marketing little beef. He was much better on crank lenght than on power.

tri is also a number $ game. how much money do you have.
where do you invest this money in the best possible way.
you cant swim , are ok on the bike , I am not going to tell you to invest big money into power if then you dont have money to invest in swimming then .
usually bad swim is bellow par bike in tri ..........for many reasons.


than there is time, if you have nothing to do at work and have time to analyse your training in work great , if you have to do it in your spare time this is lost training and recovery or social time .........

there is priorities and I have to admit that power is 8-9 out of 10 times not in the top league of my priorities I feel i have to work on.

the one sad thing I had this year was an ex client where I am really really sure that he dosnt need a powermeter..... but because so many people around him have one he feels the pressure to get one.
which in my mind is a lose situation . this guy has an built in powermeter, and the issue is in the head me thinks, buy thinking he needs a power meter he increases the mind issues.

lets use me I am quite good to work at steady state, but really poor pacer when it comes to the high end stuff, ( more so if I train with other people) so to have power for my faster stuff can be really beneficial for me. to see what happens. Or simply speaking I could have used my brain a bit more at interval work ...???? yes i could .....
so working more on my mind being less impulsive , would have most likely been as effective or i think even better.
so power can be a bit of an chicken or egg question.....

than if i have athletes that train to easy it can be really good if they see what they do . to work a bit harder.

then if you really enjoy using power why not .......if you like to run behind the little man in you garmin why not


the negative thing of power is if people get to depended on it
and this is where the character of people comes into play.
the obsessive character should not be allowed to train with power all the time ( there it really can have negative impacts as they forget to listen to their body and think all the time i must hold 340 watts when you are tired and 320 might be better on the day ..... and then they get depressed why they dont hit the numbers. they dont think about i slept badly last night iam stressed at work.

next session they train even harder to hit the numbers.... risks are high they drive themselves into the ground ( anybody remember the funny article dave posted once abut the wife manipulating the mood of her husband ........ there was a lot of brill stuff in it.)

at the end of the day it is really what you make out of the use for power or not using power .
but if I have people that spend all day looking for gear and their power file I know they dont have the time and energy and concentration to work on whats really essential for performance..................

does the distance decide? It its more the character and strenght and weaknesses off an athlete , to be honest.
I think we defo get more useful feed back from an athelte that uses power meter in a race in an Ironman ( and I like them to be taped off with most people during the race or dont look at them to much ) vs olympic. but in training I would almost suggest that a powermeter for oly distance can be more useful as you could argue the training for oly distance is more " specific" and you work a bit more in the danger zone. and I feel at the high end stuff power can lead to improvement. I think that power meter for bike racing and drafting tri make more sense than for non drafting tri . as it is potentially more important too see peak power. 20 sec peak and etc graphs.

but again as coach Paulo sousa ( a scientist by trade ) once said nicely
using power or not is not a deciding factor for performance on the whole
and with this i totally agree with, but I also understand my limits on power and seek external help when I Feel it is important , as there is people who know way more about it than myself.


How in gods name did people train before it was invented?? somebody just told me .........
than saying that the i pod was the most important tool for him.

so different tools for different folks could be the answer ;-)

Zuppy

I just came to this thread and spent an hour reading all the back posts. So I need some time to mull over it. But on the original issue of the marathon getting slower (which I do believe myself), the sports scientist in me would ask how you are measuring this?

If it is based on the average times then the massive influx of recreational runners will off set the stats as I am sure the elite field has not expanded at the same rate.
And I believe that sports science is responsible for developing the marathon boom by researching what worked and didn't and making the answers widely available for everyone. I found it difficult back in the 1990's doing my first marathon while not being involved with any club finding out anything useful in regards to training. Now if I type marathon plan into google I can get millions of hits. Most of it due to research done in the intervening years.

If it is based on the elite Irish times in the Dublin marathon over the last 3 decades then you would have to ask did we have an exceptional talent in the country that could have been better, or worse, with science to help it? Or has the development of fresh talent failed?

Has modern living caught up on us or have we developed athletics structures in the wrong way? (Long term athlete development plan spent a decade getting it wrong and now it is time to start over with a new crop or in the case of AAI would having a LTAD plan be of use to develop new elite athletes?). The debate behind the science of the LTAD is a longer debate for another time.

I asked Ron Hill about this (slower elite times) a few years ago, about the fact they tried not to drink water (the marathon had only four water tables as per IAAF) and the athletes thought it would negativity affect them yet they still ran such good times. The group (involved in the discussion at the time) reckoned it was that the 'new' runners were 'soft'. What 'soft ' meant is anyones guess but I got the impression it was to do with attitude and the mental aspects of the discipline.

Sports science has not got all the answers (yet). This coupled with the individual nature of each athlete makes evaluation of this question harder, but in the 1990's the recreational runners like myself did maybe one marathon a year and spent ages limping post event. Now recreational runners (and a large number of them) are knocking out marathons every week/month, mainly (IMO) due to the knowledge of recovery techniques and technology. Science helping again.

Sports science has evaluated the (any) technique, weighted it up and given it's verdict (or verdicts in some cases). What works makes us faster, but the science is but one factor. Lack of talent ID or of availability of high quality food sources and the quality of facilities play a roll. So does the psychology of the individual athletes and the fancy garmins.

What the science has said about the future talent in studies like the HBSC 2006/2010 is that exercise levels in children have been static (between 2006-10), and IMHO not adequate enough. Not compared to the fact that average PE time in primary school is 51 (or 54, I can't remember which) minutes PER WEEK [Dept of Ed]. This can not be good for the fundamental movement skills development and if these skills don't develop then all the gadgets in the world won't make you an elite athlete. Need to walk before you run!

So I do believe [anecdotal evidence as referenced by zuppy et al] is that Sports Science is making us faster but a number of other factors are making us slower.

Zuppy

Oh and I forgot, in my first marathon I hit the wall, and today science has made me faster by using the likes of

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/10/marathon-math/
Or Marathon Math: how not to hit the wall!


A science joke,

Science has shown that 99.5% of criminals eat sliced pan, therefore sliced pan is responsible for crime.