Re: Science based guidelines for cyclists
imposter2.0
Posts: 12,015
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
Posts
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.
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!
Not very sciencey.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This.
I welcome someones attempts to advance their ambitions but this offering seems flawed on so many levels.
Desmond Tutu
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools
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.
Look at Mamba's post, where he has quoted the OP.
I saw that but presumably part of another thread?
Where is that?
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools
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')..
I see.
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
London Calling on Facebook
Parktools
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.
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 censored & circular arguments over crank length, gearing, cadence we see far to often
Desmond Tutu
We'd all still be on the cabbage soup diet otherwise.
As others have said above, the only thing that 'stifles content' is people evading relatively basic, reasonable questions and refusing to engage in debate.
Sorry
Maybe he'll come back?
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.
Voltaire
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
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).
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.