Forum home Road cycling forum Training, fitness and health

Re: Science based guidelines for cyclists

2»

Posts

  • imposter2.0imposter2.0 Posts: 11,888
    One more thing - d'ya wanna know the biggest irony of all??

    This quote (below) is at the bottom of the 'About' section of their site:
    If you want to gain training knowledge you've come to the right place!

    If you are afraid to get your knowledge and practice challenged you're in the wrong place!

    http://www.thescienceofcycling.com/about/
  • briantrumpetbriantrumpet Posts: 10,998
    Imposter wrote:
    One more thing - d'ya wanna know the biggest irony of all??

    This quote (below) is at the bottom of the 'About' section of their site:
    If you want to gain training knowledge you've come to the right place!

    If you are afraid to get your knowledge and practice challenged you're in the wrong place!
    Ha - that's dated almost as well as many of Trump's tweets.
  • briantrumpetbriantrumpet Posts: 10,998
    Ha (2) - I just had a sneaky look, and three random observations:

    1) Anyone who refers to possessing 'facts' is probably overstating the case, and deserves to be questioned.

    2) Einstein is not spelt Einesten, and George Bernard Shaw's middle name wasn't Bernhard.

    3) Hey, weight training is great for cyclists. Proven! Anyone who doesn't want to weight train is a loser. Well, that's what the blog says.

    Have I got that right?
  • webboowebboo Posts: 4,424
    This months Country Living mag gives better advice on how to improve your sleep, than on the science blog.
  • reacherreacher Posts: 416
    Imposter wrote:
    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.

    Nope, not complaining , read what I said, merely observations, besides I know the answers to what he was asking anyway, I was interested in other peoples thoughts on the subject,
    I'm not blaming you for anything, I was pointing out that it's the subject matter that's interesting or would have been, not weather or not the guy can put up a two page list of credentials so we can all spend a week searching through the Internet to ascertain as to is this person a real person or a clever ruse by some hacker somewhere who has spent years developing a sophisticated software program to fool us all
  • imposter2.0imposter2.0 Posts: 11,888
    reacher wrote:
    I was pointing out that it's the subject matter that's interesting or would have been,

    The subject matter has been done to death on here and other forums, ad nauseam. If you have a thirst for more of the same then simply do a search, as there are threads on the strength topic which go back several years. There is currently nothing new to update it with, so repeating the same arguments today achieve absolutely nothing.
    reacher wrote:
    not weather or not the guy can put up a two page list of credentials so we can all spend a week searching through the Internet to ascertain as to is this person a real person or a clever ruse by some hacker somewhere who has spent years developing a sophisticated software program to fool us all

    You're missing the point here, by a wide margin. As someone pointed out earlier, a website which claims to be about 'science' needs someone credible to back it up. I doubt if anyone (apart from you, it seems) thought for one moment that the whole exercise was some kind of sophisticated hacking exercise. That's clearly absurd.
  • reacherreacher Posts: 416
    No thirst for it, I already know what presently works and does not work in that particular type of training and how to apply it, just simply an interest in reading others people's views /experiences or opinions on it. But then I'm always receptive to new ways of training or applying certain methods, nothing stays the same it evolves that's the nature of sport, people find new ways to train,
    You could apply that logic to every single thread posted on this section of the forum virtually, search and somwhere it will have been covered.
  • Garry HGarry H Posts: 6,639
    Lets face it, it was a shite attempt and the guy baulked and ran away at the first critique. Pathetic.
  • Garry H wrote:
    Lets face it, it was a shite attempt and the guy baulked and ran away at the first critique. Pathetic.

    I hope he posts a picture of his bike in the 'your bike' section
    I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles
  • reacherreacher Posts: 416
    The saying , you can lead a horse to water, springs to mind, or is it donkey ?
  • Garry HGarry H Posts: 6,639
    Garry H wrote:
    Lets face it, it was a shite attempt and the guy baulked and ran away at the first critique. Pathetic.

    I hope he posts a picture of his bike in the 'your bike' section

    His bike is also shite.
  • reacherreacher Posts: 416
    Garry H wrote:
    Garry H wrote:
    Lets face it, it was a shite attempt and the guy baulked and ran away at the first critique. Pathetic.

    I hope he posts a picture of his bike in the 'your bike' section

    His bike is also shite.

    Nobody ran away and it wasn't a critique, what it was, is the usual suspects jumping on a thread they had absolutely no interest in contributing to in any constructive way other than to disrupt it and satisfy their own over inflated egos on line, if you have no interest in these subjects then just don't post anything. He/they did the right thing and shut down their posts straight off, which is what you least expected and it's that, that is getting you all hot an bothered, now you all have to sit their an wait for the next opportunity to come along so that you can do the same, because one things for certain none of the people who do this will ever if never start a thread that's contributes anything of interest to he forum, and please don't respond by saying this was of no interest you will just make yourselves look even stupider than you already look
  • imposter2.0imposter2.0 Posts: 11,888
    reacher wrote:
    Garry H wrote:
    Garry H wrote:
    Lets face it, it was a shite attempt and the guy baulked and ran away at the first critique. Pathetic.

    I hope he posts a picture of his bike in the 'your bike' section

    His bike is also shite.

    Nobody ran away and it wasn't a critique, what it was, is the usual suspects jumping on a thread they had absolutely no interest in contributing to in any constructive way other than to disrupt it and satisfy their own over inflated egos on line, if you have no interest in these subjects then just don't post anything. He/they did the right thing and shut down their posts straight off, which is what you least expected and it's that, that is getting you all hot an bothered, now you all have to sit their an wait for the next opportunity to come along so that you can do the same, because one things for certain none of the people who do this will ever if never start a thread that's contributes anything of interest to he forum, and please don't respond by saying this was of no interest you will just make yourselves look even stupider than you already look

    Still blaming everyone but the OP. Are you perhaps his brother, or do you just have a massive inferiority/victim complex?
  • slowmartslowmart Posts: 4,209
    edited September 2017
    reacher wrote:
    Garry H wrote:
    Garry H wrote:
    Lets face it, it was a shite attempt and the guy baulked and ran away at the first critique. Pathetic.

    I hope he posts a picture of his bike in the 'your bike' section

    His bike is also shite.

    Nobody ran away and it wasn't a critique, what it was, is the usual suspects jumping on a thread they had absolutely no interest in contributing to in any constructive way other than to disrupt it and satisfy their own over inflated egos on line, if you have no interest in these subjects then just don't post anything. He/they did the right thing and shut down their posts straight off, which is what you least expected and it's that, that is getting you all hot an bothered, now you all have to sit their an wait for the next opportunity to come along so that you can do the same, because one things for certain none of the people who do this will ever if never start a thread that's contributes anything of interest to he forum, and please don't respond by saying this was of no interest you will just make yourselves look even stupider than you already look


    By questioning the point that sources were anonymous? Are you Serious? So if someone posts something that's fundamentally flawed no one is allowed to question the points raised?

    If you look at Imposters output the majority is well informed, succinct and answers the OP's question, alibiet sometimes in a condensed way.

    BTW employing poor grammar and throwing insults demeans and disminshes your point.
    “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 Tutu
  • Here's one of those classic threads on the subject. The OP there even did a passable job of citing scientific papers, but robust and pointed questioning brought to light that he was trying to sell a device for 'strengthening legs', but doing his best, using selective quotation, to, er, strengthen his case. viewtopic.php?f=40011&t=12753875

    Science takes no hostages, and if you cite science, expect a rough ride. If you're a real scientist, you know that's part of the game, and should relish the challenge.
  • bobmcstuffbobmcstuff Posts: 10,509
    reacher wrote:
    Garry H wrote:
    Garry H wrote:
    Lets face it, it was a shite attempt and the guy baulked and ran away at the first critique. Pathetic.

    I hope he posts a picture of his bike in the 'your bike' section

    His bike is also shite.

    Nobody ran away and it wasn't a critique, what it was, is the usual suspects jumping on a thread they had absolutely no interest in contributing to in any constructive way other than to disrupt it and satisfy their own over inflated egos on line, if you have no interest in these subjects then just don't post anything. He/they did the right thing and shut down their posts straight off, which is what you least expected and it's that, that is getting you all hot an bothered, now you all have to sit their an wait for the next opportunity to come along so that you can do the same, because one things for certain none of the people who do this will ever if never start a thread that's contributes anything of interest to he forum, and please don't respond by saying this was of no interest you will just make yourselves look even stupider than you already look

    Come off it, all they did was ask for a bit more referencing. If you're going to make scientific claims you need to back them up.

    Imposter can come off a bit shall we say, blunt, from time to time but I'm not sure this was one of those times!
Sign In or Register to comment.