Son of Ergonomics - How To Become A Lean Cyclist Via The 5 Whys

At first glance this post may not seem to have much to do with cycling, but hopefully by the end its relevance will be clear.


Despite the hype there is noting new about the [Global Intergrated Supply Chain]. Web search [Phoenicans] or [Slave Trade Triangle] to find just two examples, one glorious, one infamous from the past.


Nor is the integral part of technology in such chains anything new. The Phoenicans not only spread trade but also their alphabet, the slave trade was an enabler that,in great part, eventually gave rise to the industrial revoloution.


The current global supply chains are more of the same, only this time it is information technology that is their distinguishing feature.


My time in work coincided with the birth of this technology and I was involved in some of its early implementations. In this connection I became aware of the succcessor to my dad's ergonomics, summed up in the single word "lean".


The ideas for this go back in time but had most recently taken forward by post WWII Japanese manufacturing companies, They visited factories in the USA and learned from them, first copying then improving to the extent that the pupils became smarter than the teacher and nearly caused the failure of the very industry that had inspired them.


The essence of "lean" is to focus totally on your purpose, most specifically what it is that you do that is both essential and adds value to whatever you are making. Anything that is peripheral or not relevant in this context should be stripped away to a minimum. This could be through automation, changing processes so that it becomes unecessary or subcontracting to a specialist organisation that can do it more efficiently.


The "just in time" process is one specific example of "lean". Manufacturing companies used to have huge warehouses containing raw materials, parts or sub-assemblies waiting to be used to make something. These implied huge sunken costs in terms of space, manpower and unutilised capital. "Just in time" minimises these by aiming to reduce on-site storage to a minimum and instead take delivery of items only when they are actually needed.


Central to the pursuit of "lean" are the "5 Whys". These are not rocket science. They simply involve taking a look at some part of what is involved in making, say, a widget, and asking "Why are we doing that". On receiving an answer the next question is and "why are we doing that". By repeating this process (5 is just an rough average)  then it should become clear whether or not everything that is being done is relevant and adds value to the enterprise. A special variant of this technique can be used when encountering problems, say that have stopped a production line. The intent here is to keep asking why until the real root cause of the issue is found. This may not be apparent at a superficial level.


So why are the "5 Whys" relevant to a cyclist? Here are three reasons, there are almost certainly more.

1. Cycling to get fitter requires a lot of investment in terms of both time and money. When setting goals and deciding how much to invest in their pursuit the 5 whys can be a great way to determine if you are really doing the right thing. An example is aiming for a specific position or time in an event. These are often arbitrary and depend on luck. Asking why the result matters can be a good way both to check it is an appropriate goal and prepare for failute.
   
2. Once a goal is set asking the "5 whys" during the lead up can be a great way to prepare. This might be in deciding which items to carry with you. Or in building the phases of a training plan. And asking "why" and getting the answer that it will help in achieving a goal is a great way to start every workout.
   
3. Much of the information about how to train is wrong. It is either entirely wrong (maybe due to it being a throwback to the past that has never been questioned) or wrong for an individual (give two people the same training program and they will respond differently.) The 5 whys can act as a useful filter to check that the advice being offered or the information you are reading will actually be helpful to you.
   

"Sports Science" Free Blog

I'm a science graduate but my passion for the understanding of nature goes back to my earliest childhood and a fascination with how things work and life in all its glory, living or long gone (especially the latter back then, the book I most remember treasuring being the How and Why of Dinosaurs).


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 

I take no satisfaction in pointing out these failures. I really do wish it were otherwise. But until "sports science" gets its house in order I am afraid it will have to remain in quotes.