It is not just the pursuit of knowledge that fascinates me but also the scientific process itself. Whilst at university one of my favourite modules was on the philosophy of science were I was introduced to the work of [Karl Popper] and [Thomas Kuhn] both of whom are as relevant today as back then.
Given this it may come as a surprise that my blog will contain none of the hackneyed articles common to many sports training articles. These take the form of revealing the results of some experiment or other and then commenting on its significance to whichever topic the writer is interested in.
Sadly the net result of these articles is a whole lot of confusion since the experiments "prove" that just about every form of training is either good, bad or neutral and anything else to do with sport, such as nutrition is equally so.
I have come across hundreds of sports science articles in my time and I honestly struggle to think of a single one of any merit that has had a lasting beneficial impact on my training. On the other hand I can think of many that, when more naive, I followed so either wasting my time or going backwards not forwards.
(An honourable mention to [Stephen Seiler] here, he is an exception that proves the rule and has conducted some of the best studies that I am aware of. Tellingly though the main takeaway from them is that the variability at an individual level is the most important factor in training.)
That is not to say that science has no impact on sports and cycling in particular. It has but everything of any significance comes from other areas of science, based on much firmer footing.
Basic physics for example provides the concept of power and the related topic of efficency. Specialist areas of physics such as fluid dynamics and materials management help give insight into how to improve our aerodynamics, make our bikes faster/stronger/lighter and keep us as athletes safe and comfortable.
Biology and biochemistry have provided all the useful science that you will gain from most training manuals such as the physiology of muscles and how our various fuels are metabolised to produce the energy that moves our bikes.
So there will be lots of science in this blog. It's unlikely though that any will the result of "sports scientists"
The failings of "sports science" (at least in my exposure as a cyclist, it may be otherwise for other disciplines in which case I would love ot hear about them) are legion. Here are some for starters, each of which I will address separately later
- Theory-less experiments
- Lack of any universal standard measures
- No control for confounding variables
- No placebo controls
- Dismal sample sizes both in number and quality
- Experimenter bias
No comments:
Post a Comment