Re: Science based guidelines for cyclists
imposter2.0
Posts: 12,028
Who are the bloggers/coaches/sports scientists behind the site, please? There's no details in the 'about' section.
Edited to add that this is not my thread. The OP has since deleted all his posts.
Edited to add that this is not my thread. The OP has since deleted all his posts.
0
Comments
-
"What happens when power meters don't work, as in, I still dont win any races, but now I have a fuffin graph to prove how sh it I am"0
-
thescienceofcycling wrote:
Oh, I sense negativityImposter wrote:Who are the bloggers/coaches/sports scientists behind the site, please? There's no details in the 'about' section.
The contributors to this "blog" are anonymous, if that's a problem you are free to read the blogs written by other experts whose one and only intention is to make money on their products/coaching services. If you ar sceptical about the content/statements in some of our posts, please feel free to point it out. Non of our posts contain statements not backed up by science.
- The Science of Cycling -
http://www.thescienceofcycling.com
Wow, talk about getting your retaliation in early
What you call 'negativity' I would call a perfectly reasonable question - I'm surprised you don't see it that way. If your site is called 'the science of cycling' then I would expect to see the credentials of those contributing/commenting, if not their names.
As for being sceptical about some of the content, why are you not balancing Ronnestad's work against many of the other studies on the topic which are equivocal at best. You seem very quick to jump to conclusions, which makes me wonder if you are indeed 'scientists' at all.0 -
thescienceofcycling wrote:We've started a blog with the ambitious aim of breaking down research articles in order to provide training, nutrition and gear guidelines to our readers.
We're therefor wondering what themes/issues the readers of the bikeradar forum want us to dig deeper into?
All suggestions will be considered and we promise to provide you with updates when the articles are published.
Thank you in advance
- The Science of Cycling -
http://www.thescienceofcycling.com/blog
Yep dig into the benefits or not of off the bike strength training for the over 40 endurance cyclist, give us all the definitive answer!0 -
5/10
Not very sciencey.0 -
Still don't understand why it has to be anonymous.
Usually the only time authors do that is when they don't want to be associated personally with their writing, don't think it would stand up to criticism (or are making wildly dubious claims), or don't think anyone would read/want it (the latter case usually making the author choose a male pseudonym, as anonymous works submitted to publishers usually don't get very far).
If you don't include ads for coaching services, people probably won't think you're trying to sell them something.
You do appear to be using photographs without credit though, that's generally a no-no and a mark of unprofessionalism in my book.0 -
thescienceofcycling wrote:
Off course we could have chosen to include a lot more studies on strength training for cyclists. But as stated: we try to pick out the research WE feel are relevant to provide guidelines to cyclists who do not read research papers.
Which brings me nicely back to my original point - what qualifies 'you' to decide on what is relevant and what is not? We don't know anything about you, because you won't tell us.thescienceofcycling wrote:As of the Ronnestad question we have the following answer: Ronnestad was specially invited to present his work on strength training at this years Science&Cycling conference in Dusseldorf. He was actually the only presenter presenting anything on strength training for cyclists, and his work is to date considered to be the methodically best within the field of cycling. That's why. If we chose to include 50 studies we are over to writing review articles, that's not our aim.
That's not really a good enough answer. Ronnestad routinely seems to compare two groups who have not done equal amounts of training, before pronouncing that the group which has done more training is evidence that strength work is effective. Obviously, you don't want to have to precis 50 studies or more, but come on - four out of your six cited references are Ronnestad's. That's not balanced in my opinion - and not very scientific either. Looks suspiciously like 'confirmation bias', unfortunately.0 -
Surely the main issue is your credibility? You seem determined to keep your identity hidden, in a field where identity and credibility are absolutely critical in being taken seriously.
You admit Ronnestad's studies have 'weaknesses' - yet you have not pointed these out to your readers - how is that providing a fair, balanced summary?
You also seem to be suggesting that the 'average cyclist' has lower standards when it comes to veracity of information sources, which is a strange thing to say.
And for the record, I would rather keep the discourse public, rather than resorting to PMs.0 -
Ok, he's flounced and deleted his posts.0
-
Imposter wrote:Surely the main issue is your credibility? You seem determined to keep your identity hidden, in a field where identity and credibility are absolutely critical in being taken seriously.
.
This.
I welcome someones attempts to advance their ambitions but this offering seems flawed on so many levels.“Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to cycle and he will realize fishing is stupid and boring”
Desmond Tutu0 -
No surprise their, it's fairly typical of this forum, where people try to put stuff across and it gets dissected to the nth degree until they give up, admittedly a lot of points raised may or may not be of interest to everyone, now however they are of interest to no one because it's no longer their.0
-
Why does this thread make no sense? What is it actually referring to?I don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0 -
reacher wrote:No surprise their, it's fairly typical of this forum, where people try to put stuff across and it gets dissected to the nth degree until they give up, admittedly a lot of points raised may or may not be of interest to everyone, now however they are of interest to no one because it's no longer their.
He's only deleted his posts here - he hasn't deleted his website. Besides, if someone calls their site 'the science of cycling', they should be able to defend the science - or at least debate it when challenged.0 -
cooldad wrote:Why does this thread make no sense? What is it actually referring to?
Look at Mamba's post, where he has quoted the OP.0 -
Imposter wrote:cooldad wrote:Why does this thread make no sense? What is it actually referring to?
Look at Mamba's post, where he has quoted the OP.
I saw that but presumably part of another thread?
Where is that?I don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0 -
cooldad wrote:
No, that was the opening post of this thread. The 'science guy' has since deleted all his posts on this thread, which is why it looks odd. The only evidence he has posted is where people have quoted him. (I say 'him' - happy to acknowledge it could be a 'her')..0 -
Aaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
I see.I don't do smileys.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools0 -
Imposter wrote:reacher wrote:No surprise their, it's fairly typical of this forum, where people try to put stuff across and it gets dissected to the nth degree until they give up, admittedly a lot of points raised may or may not be of interest to everyone, now however they are of interest to no one because it's no longer their.
He's only deleted his posts here - he hasn't deleted his website. Besides, if someone calls their site 'the science of cycling', they should be able to defend the science - or at least debate it when challenged.
Which given the chance they probably would have, like I say we will never know now, which is a pity because it was looking to be one of the more interesting threads on here of late,0 -
reacher wrote:Imposter wrote:reacher wrote:No surprise their, it's fairly typical of this forum, where people try to put stuff across and it gets dissected to the nth degree until they give up, admittedly a lot of points raised may or may not be of interest to everyone, now however they are of interest to no one because it's no longer their.
He's only deleted his posts here - he hasn't deleted his website. Besides, if someone calls their site 'the science of cycling', they should be able to defend the science - or at least debate it when challenged.
Which given the chance they probably would have, like I say we will never know now, which is a pity because it was looking to be one of the more interesting threads on here of late,
What do you mean 'given the chance'? The guy chose to delete his own posts and disengage - nobody else did it for him.
If the guy can't even respond to my own relatively unsophisticated line of questioning, then he wouldn't stand an earthly if someone like Alex or Ric was ever to get involved...0 -
Imposter wrote:reacher wrote:Imposter wrote:reacher wrote:No surprise their, it's fairly typical of this forum, where people try to put stuff across and it gets dissected to the nth degree until they give up, admittedly a lot of points raised may or may not be of interest to everyone, now however they are of interest to no one because it's no longer their.
He's only deleted his posts here - he hasn't deleted his website. Besides, if someone calls their site 'the science of cycling', they should be able to defend the science - or at least debate it when challenged.
Which given the chance they probably would have, like I say we will never know now, which is a pity because it was looking to be one of the more interesting threads on here of late,
What do you mean 'given the chance'? The guy chose to delete his own posts and disengage - nobody else did it for him.
If the guy can't even respond to my own relatively unsophisticated line of questioning, then he wouldn't stand an earthly if someone like Alex or Ric was ever to get involved...
Exactly my point, your posts and others like you are very cleverly worded and very difficult to get around you also are adept at taking parts of posts and pasting them out of context and tearing them apart, this does not nessacerally mean you are right or wrong your just very good at it, which is typical of long term forum users who dominate everything thats posted which is open to displaying their typing skills and use of wordmanship, your more interested in being top dog than letting discussions run their course and other people having an input or perhaps learning something. All it does long term is stifle the content of the forum.0 -
That's a hell of a chip you have there.0
-
I would have never suggested Imposters posts are cleverly worded.
Ever ;-)
The initial question pointed to the validity of anonymous sources advocating a science based approach and I have trouble seeing how such posts "stifle content" given some the anal & circular arguments over crank length, gearing, cadence we see far to often“Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to cycle and he will realize fishing is stupid and boring”
Desmond Tutu0 -
Seemed like the beginnings of a healthy debate to me, why shouldn't people be challenged.
We'd all still be on the cabbage soup diet otherwise.0 -
reacher wrote:All it does long term is stifle the content of the forum.
As others have said above, the only thing that 'stifles content' is people evading relatively basic, reasonable questions and refusing to engage in debate.0 -
Chance for everyone to question and ridicule the OP lost forever. Bad Imposter!0
-
mamil314 wrote:Chance for everyone to question and ridicule the OP lost forever. Bad Imposter!
Sorry
Maybe he'll come back?0 -
Just because it says 'science' doesn't mean it's always so.
Many, many stories of 'science' faking their data to their own agenda. Always beware, especially if big corporations are involved. Check it yourself. The internet is your friend/enemy/all of the above.Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.
Voltaire0 -
Imposter wrote:That's a hell of a chip you have there.
Not at all, merely observations, I'm too busy training to take much notice, but I was interested in this one, just to put your mind at ease though, I'v said it before and il say it again, your obviously very knowledgable on certain subjects I was merely pointing out that maybe not be so over zealous on things you don't agree with0 -
Darn, too late to the party. Sorry, I've been off riding my bike up big hills, not giving a gnat's fart to the science of it all.
This short thread seems very tame compared with how full-on scientists and academics dissect each others' work. If someone comes onto a forum using the word 'science' as a credential, they should be prepared to defend, politely but unemotionally, their hunch/thesis/theory, with evidence.
Even better would be to be like Richard Feynman, and start by admitting all the flaws in their hunch, but then give the reasoning why, despite all the flaws, it's still the best hunch/theory (till another one comes along).0 -
reacher wrote:Imposter wrote:That's a hell of a chip you have there.
Not at all, merely observations, I'm too busy training to take much notice, but I was interested in this one, just to put your mind at ease though, I'v said it before and il say it again, your obviously very knowledgable on certain subjects I was merely pointing out that maybe not be so over zealous on things you don't agree with
Seriously, the only zealotry I see is coming from you. I really don't understand what you are complaining about. Discussion works by taking issue with something and then inviting the other party to respond. What you don't expect is the other party to respond by deleting all their content from the discussion, as it's not very mature, not very professional and certainly not very scientific. Please direct your ire at the guy who pulled his posts - not the guy who asked him to explain himself.
You seem to like blaming me for stuff - and on this occasion in particular I really do think you should wind your neck in.0
