does sport science make us slower ???

d4r3n

peter kern wrote: »

nobody does aruge that science makes slower what makes slower is to focus too much on other stuff than actually to train

So is this the: Does buying the latest gadget, not knowing how to train properly and thinking you're training scientifically because you've the latest toy (think triathlon magazine rubbish "training with power!"/"polars latest ...").

Then get caught up with your own ideas around what makes you faster rather than solid training with the help of sports science (as a tool) make us slower?

If so I think nobody will deny that

peter kern

d4r3n wrote: »

So is this the: Does buying the latest gadget, not knowing how to train properly and thinking you're training scientifically because you've the latest toy (think triathlon magazine rubbish "training with power!"/"polars latest ...").

Then get caught up with your own ideas around what makes you faster rather than solid training with the help of sports science (as a tool) make us slower?

If so I think nobody will deny that

and thats the reason why to have a how can sport science make us faster thread would be good to actually find a way how to use it to ones advantage.

peter kern

i know a guy that works for a federation that will give him as much money as he wants for lactate testing.
Hi knows that using that money to buy his athletes races wheels would be faster and get better results. the federation dosnt give him money for that.......

bryangiggsy

peter kern wrote: »

i know a guy that works for a federation that will give him as much money as he wants for lactate testing.
Hi knows that using that money to buy his athletes races wheels would be faster and get better results. the federation dosnt give him money for that.......

Sport science has made fionnula britton faster no. To get her lactate to acceptable levels she has to run 40 mins as slow as a snail after each hard session to get optimal recovery. If she did not have lactate testing she would be guessing the optimal warm down for her body. Pretty sure she would not have come up with 40 mins but for science.

longshank

tunney wrote: »

Yes it is sports science that has made me slower over the last two years.

I read this research paper that said drinking lots and lots of wine and eat lots and lots of crap was a valid substitute for training. I followed the protocol for consuming wine and Haribo religiously for two years. It *just* hasn't made me any faster. Bloody sports science.




Thats cause I fvcking ate it!
They don't call me "Dave Tummy" for nothing!

As a matter of interest in relation to my point about performance being mainly genetics what was the difference in times this year (doing everything wrong?) and 2 years ago (doing everything right?)?

peter kern

bryangiggsy wrote: »

Sport science has made fionnula britton faster no. To get her lactate to acceptable levels she has to run 40 mins as slow as a snail after each hard session to get optimal recovery. If she did not have lactate testing she would be guessing the optimal warm down for her body. Pretty sure she would not have come up with 40 mins but for science.

so you are saying that the coach who has done the lactate testing and now is sure race wheels would be faster is wrong ?

or you are saying that Darrens smith or Brett sutton s girls can t run as fast as Aileen as they dont care much for lactate testing|?
all this 3 coaches are world class all 3 are quite different the one think that unites them is they get results
ps with the 3rd coach I mean chris J

longshank

peter kern wrote: »

so you are saying that the coach who has done the lactate testing and now is sure race wheels would be faster is wrong ?

or you are saying that Darrens smith or Brett sutton s girls can t run as fast as Aileen as they dont care much for lactate testing|?
all this 3 coaches are world class all 3 are quite different the one think that unites them is they get results
ps with the 3rd coach I mean chris J

r u saying the coaches methods are irrelevant to results?:eek:

peter kern

i am saying one is the anto crist of science and very often turns people around that where not succefful for quite some time.

one is a conductor by trade and uses sport science people

one is a phd in exercise science and dosnt care aout testing but is as freak on technique.

all three understand how to get world class performance in v differetn ways.
like switzerland norway and sigapore would have very different ways of being one of the richest countries in the world.


also one athlete improved a lot under 1 of the 3 and got slower with another.... so not everything works for everybody.

longshank

bryangiggsy wrote: »

Sport science has made fionnula britton faster no. To get her lactate to acceptable levels she has to run 40 mins as slow as a snail after each hard session to get optimal recovery. If she did not have lactate testing she would be guessing the optimal warm down for her body. Pretty sure she would not have come up with 40 mins but for science.

"lactate is a totally innocous substance, that if infused into the bloodstream, has no noticeable effects"(Noakes, 2003).
"Within an hour of intensive interval training during which blood lactate reach the highest achievable values (15mmol per litre), muscle lactate levels will return to normal". (Peters-Futre et al. 1987)
Sounds like she is wasting 40 mins to clear an innocous substance 20mins earlier than it would clear anyway..... - thats sports science for you:mad: But it works u protest....probably has a psychological effect on her recovery.:rolleyes:

peter kern

longshank wrote: »

"lactate is a totally innocous substance, that if infused into the bloodstream, has no noticeable effects"(Noakes, 2003).
"Within an hour of intensive interval training during which blood lactate reach the highest achievable values (15mmol per litre), muscle lactate levels will return to normal". (Peters-Futre et al. 1987)
Sounds like she is wasting 40 mins to clear an innocous substance 20mins earlier than it would clear anyway..... - thats sports science for you:mad: But it works u protest....probably has a psychological effect on her recovery.:rolleyes:

oh there we go we have started with which scientist is correct ;-)

longshank

peter kern wrote: »

oh there we go we have started with which scientist is correct ;-)

as i say that's sports science for you!! but what i'm really saying is i agree with you that there are many different ways and many different people, the way to be successful at the art/science of coaching is either change your methods to suit individuals or change the individuals to suit your methods.. but most of all don't believe all the science.

tunney

peter kern wrote: »

Comming back to the icing of the cake without having the cake

in this post you agree with darren smith that science is 2 %

so what are your other 98 % dave ?

No, I agreed that Darren Smith applied 2% science. I didn't say I agree that 2/98 was the ratio that determined use of sports science

tunney

longshank wrote: »

As a matter of interest in relation to my point about performance being mainly genetics what was the difference in times this year (doing everything wrong?) and 2 years ago (doing everything right?)?

Back then my long run was a 3:00 42.5km run before work and I'd be fine to run home in the evening and I was able to run a 33 minute
Now I'd struggle to run a 42:00 10km and my long run is 20km and that takes an eternity and I'm fvcked for a day or two.

Back then I could hold 240 watts for 5 hours and feel fresh at the end.
Now my FTP isn't far over 240 watts.

Back then I could swim 20x100 off 1:45
Now I am coming in on 1:45.

longshank

tunney wrote: »

Back then my long run was a 3:00 42.5km run before work and I'd be fine to run home in the evening and I was able to run a 33 minute
Now I'd struggle to run a 42:00 10km and my long run is 20km and that takes an eternity and I'm fvcked for a day or two.

Back then I could hold 240 watts for 5 hours and feel fresh at the end.
Now my FTP isn't far over 240 watts.

Back then I could swim 20x100 off 1:45
Now I am coming in on 1:45.

The often used figure is 80% genetics 20% performance. I know myself when I went back straight to racing after 6 months out injured, although I felt terrible, times were in fact within that 20% range. I can't really work it out from the times you quoted but it would appear to be within the same range. 20% is still alot to work with especially the longer the distance but you are born with a limit and try too hard to go beyond it and injury/overtraining/loss of motivation will follow. Tim Noakes in Lore of Running says your aim should be to reach your limit with the least amount of training possible...an interesting perspective?

peter kern

tunney wrote: »

No, I agreed that Darren Smith applied 2% science. I didn't say I agree that 2/98 was the ratio that determined use of sports science

so what is the ratio in your mind?

peter kern

peter kern wrote: »

so what is the ratio in your mind?

ps apart from the fact that he very often only uses easy medium fast in his coaching ( dosnt use a watch in the pool over the winter) he is using massive ammounts of science. I doubt that there is a tri coach that reads more papers than him on a daily basis.

tunney

peter kern wrote: »

ps apart from the fact that he very often only uses easy medium fast in his coaching ( dosnt use a watch in the pool over the winter) he is using massive ammounts of science. I doubt that there is a tri coach that reads more papers than him on a daily basis.

I read the sun, the star, the metro, the indo, the times, the guardian, the examiner and the dailymail. bet he doesn't read that many on a daily basis

longshank

tunney wrote: »

I read the sun, the star, the metro, the indo, the times, the guardian, the examiner and the dailymail. bet he doesn't read that many on a daily basis

must be where you get your writing style and rapier wit from.

bobblehead_jr

peter kern wrote: »

ps apart from the fact that he very often only uses easy medium fast in his coaching ( dosnt use a watch in the pool over the winter) he is using massive ammounts of science. I doubt that there is a tri coach that reads more papers than him on a daily basis.

Looking at uber hard session. It. Guess thats required to reduce that its also the limit of? Gear to know from pre birth, mainly cause it turns your quote not. Suggest in ireland and the africans this is much more based on super wheels that hours its the race, but you know that calculates everything forgetting a hr rate monitor can go a hr and there is it is getting faster in the title.

sconhome

bobblehead_jr wrote: »

Looking at uber hard session. It. Guess thats required to reduce that its also the limit of? Gear to know from pre birth, mainly cause it turns your quote not. Suggest in ireland and the africans this is much more based on super wheels that hours its the race, but you know that calculates everything forgetting a hr rate monitor can go a hr and there is it is getting faster in the title.

??

I've lost the run of this thread.

couerdelion

amphkingwest wrote: »

??

I've lost the run of this thread.

I think Bobblehead has turned into Brett Sutton!

longshank

bobblehead_jr wrote: »

Looking at uber hard session. It. Guess thats required to reduce that its also the limit of? Gear to know from pre birth, mainly cause it turns your quote not. Suggest in ireland and the africans this is much more based on super wheels that hours its the race, but you know that calculates everything forgetting a hr rate monitor can go a hr and there is it is getting faster in the title.

has somebody been putting there posts through an online translator??

peter kern

amphkingwest wrote: »

??

I've lost the run of this thread.

everything he says makes sense to me.

peter kern

amphkingwest wrote: »

??

I've lost the run of this thread.

why huff and puff manged to bring it all very nicely togheter

You are right there Peter. I don't use any gadgets at all on the bike, not even a speedometer. I don't use anything in the run (a watch if doing intervals) or swim either.

I can definitely see the value in using gadgets though but it is just my personal preference to train and race by feel. I would hate to have a watch telling me how fast I should or should not be going in a race. For me its a case of as hard as you can for as long as you can without going into the red.

I wouldn't be the poster boy for an anti sports science campaign though as there is no doubting the many benefits sports science has brought to many sports (triathlon included). I think you know yourself that it has brought benefits but you are just trying to spark a debate and alert people to the fact that it's not all about the latest gadgets. That is certainly a good point to make.

peter kern

In the half light of morning, in a world between the sheets
I swear I saw her angel wing, my vision was complete

tweet by tunney this morning seems like he is changing his mind ;-0

Zuppy

I stop reading for a few days and suddenly the thread takes off again.

I just wonder how much our sports culture and social factors inhibit our correct use of the "sports science" or proper training philosophy. Our lack of discipline reflected in the purchurse of gagets instead of a proper focus on training and recovery?

peter kern

Zuppy wrote: »

I stop reading for a few days and suddenly the thread takes off again.

I just wonder how much our sports culture and social factors inhibit our correct use of the "sports science" or proper training philosophy. Our lack of discipline reflected in the purchurse of gagets instead of a proper focus on training and recovery?

There you could
Argue power was invented by a german O

sconhome

peter kern wrote: »

There you could
Argue power was invented by a german O

Probably not invented by a German but certain to be seized by one

sconhome

Zuppy wrote: »

I stop reading for a few days and suddenly the thread takes off again.

I just wonder how much our sports culture and social factors inhibit our correct use of the "sports science" or proper training philosophy. Our lack of discipline reflected in the purchurse of gagets instead of a proper focus on training and recovery?

But doesnt it all overlap?

Sports science (again I use the term in reference to knowing how the body works & developments around this) is surely the catalyst to better coaching and training regimes. To me sports science and proper coaching go hand in hand, the athlete is continually a 'laboratory' experiement tweaking and seeking the more efficient means to optimun performance.

Over reliance & dependence on HRM, power meters etc is just another form of misguided belief. The electronic gadgets are a means of tracking information and evaluating the data (if you want) to help with the tailoring of training plans or workouts.

I think the lines between sports science and sports gadgets are being confused through this whole thread.

Interesting use of 'social factors' as I see a few people who 'have to have a Garmin' simply because others have them and you are not deemed to be a runner, triathlete, cyclist unless you have one. It doesn't matter whether you fully understand the purpose of using one or not, it has to be got, as a gadget.

peter kern

of course it is confused but that happens in the tri world on a daily basis.
its kind of funny i talked about it on the way to ahtlone, when I was told that girl x was at a training camp with a coach and they focused totally on power in training and all the people went wow this is so scientific....... they dont seem to think whats the real benefits they just go wow thats scientific training. so they see the gadget as science.


at the end of the day we dodnt discuss science we discuss why marathon runner are still slower than 20 years ago when there is so much more out there to help them.