Spleens, Power Training, evidence, research, proof, credentials, creativity and Power

Spleens, Power Training, evidence, research, proof, credentials, creativity and PowerCranks

The following article, while specifically addressing research on spleens, suggests much about how discourse on these boards around various controversial subjects could be improved.

Key quotes:
"That researchers are only now discovering a major feature of a rather large organ they have been studying for at least 2,000 years demonstrates yet again that there is nothing so foreign as the place we call home.

"Often, if you come across something in the body that seems like a big deal, you think, 'Why didn't anybody check this before?' " Dr. Nahrendorf said. "But the more you learn, the more you realize that we're just scratching on the surface of life. We don't know the whole story about anything."

NYT: Finally, the Spleen Gets Some Respect
_______________________
Mankind has, for millennia, been studying every aspect of how the human body works. In just the past half century we've surely dumped billions in research $ into these inquiries. By comparison, only a pittance has been devoted to research into human athletic performance.

Yet in the face of this, certain these topics on these boards are totally dominated a very small number of posters who rely heavily on allusions to research drawn from what is comparatively a pretty impoverished body of knowledge. "There's no evidence of X in the literature" they bark (again and again and again) at anyone who posts a counterpoint.

Guys, in my work I have to cite research constantly. I do so out of respect for my audience. I often don't know them and they often don't know me, so citing some external support is helpful in building trust.

In research, the best investigators are people who are curious, can hypothesize, design experiments to prove or disprove hypotheses and then actually do so. The researchers on these boards don't do enough of that. At their worst, or at their worst moments, they have the effect of shutting down dialog on hypotheses and experiment. Most likely, shutting down debate is their goal. That is the exact opposite of what top-class researchers do.

You guys -I think you know who you are- might try reading Lore of Running to re-acquaint yourselves with how to critique hypotheses and experiment. It will make you better researchers and better moderators.

__________________
Mark

Magnanimous words, indeed.

However, you have committed the cardinal sin of parenting - 'Do as I say, don't do as I do', otherwise known as the "hypocritical oath".

You state you site research constantly, but in your own post you won't even name those posters of whom you indict for "shutting down dialogue for hypotheses and experiment" and "shutting down debate". Why won't you site your research??

As such, IMO you have lost what little credibility you thought you were garnering by even making your post.

My $0.02CAN worth...

Yup things would just be so much easier if people just agreed with my opinion that I am a **** hot coach!

__________________
Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach
http://hamishferguson.blogspot.com/

Oh, the irony...

Am I reading this correctly? You constantly cite research to gain respect and credibility from people you want to listen to you -- not because you actually use that research and knowledge as the basis for building upon it by contributing your own?

That sounds like the words of a true internet expert who sprinkles a few citations and quotes around to lend credence to their opinions. Forgive my slowness, but can you elaborate on how this shocking new spleen research has validated your opinions on power training for cyclists and PowerCranks?

Andrew, The irony is: I don't understand your comment. Please 'splain it to me. Thanks

__________________
Mark

(1) No, you are not reading it correctly. I cite research in the work I do because the area I work in is riven with religious-war like fervor frequently unsupported by evidence, and often in the face of absolutely contradictory evidence. I present my ideas, a line of reasoning, supporting and opposed evidence, and my recommendations. For my work, "success" is when my audience/customer agrees to conduct an experiment, look at the data and react to the evidence.

(2) I cannot 'elaborate upon how the spleen research validates my opinions on power training for cyclists and PowerCranks' since that wasn't even close to my point.

__________________
Mark

It's settled then: you are a **** hot coach.

__________________
Mark

That sounds like 75%+ of the posts I read here. The only exception is that it's free and there's no 'success criteria' for internet posts -- readers either feel they got helpful recommendations or they don't.

So, what ideas, lines of reasoning, supporting and opposed evidence, and recommendations do you have to contribute to this power training forum?

In looking through your posting history, I see that the majority of your posts have involved discussion of PowerCranks. I think if you branch out into other lines of discussion on these forums you'll find the conversations more helpful and less opinionated. Just a suggestion.

...and based on my quick skim-through, not one single citation to a scientific article to be found among them. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!

I'm not critiquing anyone for not citing sources. I'm critiquing researchers for not being curious.

Does anyone on this thread have a comment upon the linked article and what it suggests about the massive blind spots the research community allows itself, sometimes for decades and centuries?

Let me guess: "research conducted in the area of major organs is irrelevant to that conducted in the orders-of-magnitude-smaller-and-correspondingly-lower-funded athletic performance area" (read: I am incapable of translational thinking)

__________________
Mark

Maybe you are, but I'm not.

Be that as it may, I would say that there is a big difference between simply "thinking outside the box" and indulging in "pie-in-the-sky" fantasies. IMEO, the notion behind PowerCranks is much closer to the latter than the former.

Fair enough. Peace.

BTW: the last time I expressed an opinion on PCs was (I think) more than 5 years ago.

__________________
Mark

I would shoot any of my riders who just took my word for it.

Demand evidence.

I like Frenchyge's comment that science builds on previous work. Ed Coyle presented in a seminar on Carbohydrate intake. How when he started it was feed an athlete cho and they could pedal harder. Now we have invasive techniques so we can see the muscle at work and know what we worked out years ago was right.

Other times the new technology will show us our errors. When HR was everything MTB riders thought they had to train like TT riders because of the high max HR. Power showed us that power varies greatly in an XC event and they knew to change to a more interval based programme.

__________________
Hamish Ferguson: Cycling Coach
http://hamishferguson.blogspot.com/

Do you have something specific in mind or are you referring to the lack of published research on Powercranks? In the latter case it would seem they are a commercial endeavour and their lack of success is due to:
a) poor marketing and/or
b) they don't work as advertised.

In any case, it doesn't seem like an example of something that the research community has, or should be, prioritizing for scarce research dollars since there is a commercial interest involved.