does sport science make us slower ???

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.

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.