does sport science make us slower ???

peter kern · 02-05-2012 4:33pm

i think they can be fantastic tools for some, unnecessary for some
and bad for some .
and I use power for some of my athletes.

peter kern · 02-05-2012 4:35pm

and to make you smile actually good for myself .

zico10 · 03-05-2012 1:43am

Peter, how do you decide if a PM will be good for one of your athletes?

hf4z6sqo7vjngi · 03-05-2012 9:11am

zico10 wrote: »

Peter, how do you decide if a PM will be good for one of your athletes?

And does the distance they race factor in your decision in any way?

tunney · 03-05-2012 9:51am

peter kern wrote: »

this was an email of one of my clients describing the difference of a retul bike bit and a bike fit.......
I am confident that this athlete would be hard to beat on bike split performance from 2011 to 2012 fit was done in oct 2011. (no hr no power no garmin)

to make it clear Iam not at all against retul ( and also retul fitter was not based in Ireland and based in Usa )

The retul fit was on a turbo trainer in the bike shop so I didn’t get a feel for cycling the bike on the road. Therefore, it was difficult to give feedback on how the bike felt to cycle or whether changes were good or bad. There is a huge emphasis on what the various sensors are picking up as regards the angles and the force going through the pedals and this educates the decisions about what to change. I probably let the computer make the decisions rather than getting particularly involved as that is what the fit seems to be about. Particularly for someone like me who is not an experienced cyclist, I found it difficult to speak up and say...this doesn’t feel right. I was happier to let the computer do the thinking. The problem that I saw was that after all of this technical tweeking and testing, when I finally got out on it, the bike was not comfortable to cycle and my balance was all off. I also developed pain in both knees after 40K so it clearly didn’t suit me at all. However, I was advised to get a follow up fit and maybe these problems could have been sorted when I returned. There is also the possibility that I am, as I have been recently described, a “bike fit nightmare!”

As regards the pb3 fit, this was much more based on feel while actually cycling and on you cycling with me observing how I was working on the bike. The end result was much more satisfying as I felt balanced on my bike and I could feel that the position suited me to push power into the pedals. I was asked to give feedback about how the bike felt while cycling and I think that resulted in things being changed in the set up so that it suited me. I felt that I had a role in giving feedback and that probably works better in deciding between various options. There is a wealth of knowledge that comes with people who’ve been around bikes and who know what to look for but you need to have absolute confidence in the person who is making the changes. So I guess the reason that people go for a retul fit or something similar is because they believe that a computer will give a more consistent result. When you are relying on someone’s eye and expertise, you need that person to be excellent at what they do and to have absolute confidence in their decisions. If you are lucky enough to know someone with that expertise (such as our resident expert in pb3!) you get a much better result as the fit responds to your needs rather than giving you a one-size-fits-all computer analysis .

Peter, I understand exactly the point you are trying to make. Unfortunately you picked a horrific example to back it up.

Retul is not a fitting system. Retul is a fitting tool. It is a fancy tape measure. You probably used a tape measure in your fitting.

In this case it was not your intuition versus science or a system but your intuition versus someone elses intuition. Given you expertise and knowledge and experience I am not surprised that your fit was vastly superior.

However I feel that this thread has descended from a discussion on sports science to arguing about which will improve your IM time more - a PM or rubbing the purée of a squirrel's liver on your left ankle on the last night of equinox of the year.

Regarding tools - I know we are both on the same page. For some they work and for some they do not. I help people with their training, not as many as you as its not my livelihood and I've never acknowledged it until now but I do. You might find it surprising that I actually adopt a similar approach to yourself. Some train with power, some I try to not even allow look at a pool clock almost. Some response well to numbers, some are limited by them - physically and psychologically. Tools can be good, tools can be bad. As the NRA in the US love to say "Its not the gun that kills people, its the person pulling the trigger"

I remember a few years back a certain German sat off my back wheel during a duathlon, legally mind. I had a faster bike split and I believe ultimately beat him on the day. Meant nothing to him but alot to me. However the interesting bit was that this German coached a good friend of mine. The German remarked to my friend, a much stronger biker than me, that if he paced himself as well as I did he'd do alot better. I was chuffed with this comment as, as you know, I've always looked up to you, always admired your approach and successes, and indeed I've always felt that if I was coached by you that I would have huge success. Anyways enough with inflating your ego - I learnt to pace myself with a power meter. The tool works for me. My friend also had a power meter though, didn't work for him, he hates them.

Bringing it back to the original question - "why has sports science not helped?"

A story from across the water. The film Moneyball [Link - the missus wanted to watch it I knew nothing about it other than kn0b end Brad Pitt was in it. Turns out its a great film and based on a true story. Basically many years ago someone devised a way of picking a baseball team solely on numbers that would guarantee the best odds of winning the "World Series", it would also do so as cheapily as possible. This research was known about for years but never used as it went against that the coaches and experienced men of baseball knew to be true. Turns out what they knew to be true was wrong. Okay its not sports science but a science (maths) that was resisted and not applied to baseball. When it was proved to work by one team it was applied everywhere and changed how the sport is done.

I think that the impact of sports science has been similarly restricted in Ireland. Resistance from those that do not understand it and therefore fear it and as such do not apply it.

As an example of where science has been shown to help, and as I said without explaining earlier, is Team Sky. They were laughed out of it when they stated their goals and their approach in cycling. Look at them now.

Sports science, like Retul, is a tool. The understanding, interpretation and application of it are what make it work.

shotgunmcos · 03-05-2012 11:11am

IMO sports science doesn't make us slower... It makes the fast faster.

X factor & popcorn anyone? :rolleyes:

peter kern · 03-05-2012 11:49am

tunney wrote: »

Peter, I understand exactly the point you are trying to make. Unfortunately you picked a horrific example to back it up.

Retul is not a fitting system. Retul is a fitting tool. It is a fancy tape measure. You probably used a tape measure in your fitting.

I think thats that retul and power meter are both tools and measure tapes
and no i did not sue a messure tape . I used the athlete as a measure tape.

later more to the rest as this is great stuff.

edit and the interesting think is many people think retul is a fitting system .......... I was just tring to say here how poorly a massure tape can be used.especially if the athletes dosnt listen to its body

and in the same way how poorly a power meter can be used .

and yes leaving your club and going with power made you an athlete there is no doubt about that.
you are prob the most analyzed athelte that never has been with pb3 coaching.

peter kern · 03-05-2012 11:54am

Nathalia Moldy Bather wrote: »

And does the distance they race factor in your decision in any way?

I am really struggeling to answer the first question for whom power works in less than 5000 words.....

the one thing the way I coach they are not really important , as I use other ways more ( and everything has pros and cons)
so If I feel my way dosnt work ie dosnt get the results I want, than I look around what else can be done.

fact is there is world class tri coaches that use power and world class coaches that dont use power. ANd Mr Srm did not have much beef in his article for power yesterday. great marketing little beef. He was much better on crank lenght than on power.

tri is also a number $ game. how much money do you have.
where do you invest this money in the best possible way.
you cant swim , are ok on the bike , I am not going to tell you to invest big money into power if then you dont have money to invest in swimming then .
usually bad swim is bellow par bike in tri ..........for many reasons.

than there is time, if you have nothing to do at work and have time to analyse your training in work great , if you have to do it in your spare time this is lost training and recovery or social time .........

there is priorities and I have to admit that power is 8-9 out of 10 times not in the top league of my priorities I feel i have to work on.

the one sad thing I had this year was an ex client where I am really really sure that he dosnt need a powermeter..... but because so many people around him have one he feels the pressure to get one.
which in my mind is a lose situation . this guy has an built in powermeter, and the issue is in the head me thinks, buy thinking he needs a power meter he increases the mind issues.

lets use me I am quite good to work at steady state, but really poor pacer when it comes to the high end stuff, ( more so if I train with other people) so to have power for my faster stuff can be really beneficial for me. to see what happens. Or simply speaking I could have used my brain a bit more at interval work ...???? yes i could .....
so working more on my mind being less impulsive , would have most likely been as effective or i think even better.
so power can be a bit of an chicken or egg question.....

than if i have athletes that train to easy it can be really good if they see what they do . to work a bit harder.

then if you really enjoy using power why not .......if you like to run behind the little man in you garmin why not

the negative thing of power is if people get to depended on it
and this is where the character of people comes into play.
the obsessive character should not be allowed to train with power all the time ( there it really can have negative impacts as they forget to listen to their body and think all the time i must hold 340 watts when you are tired and 320 might be better on the day ..... and then they get depressed why they dont hit the numbers. they dont think about i slept badly last night iam stressed at work.

next session they train even harder to hit the numbers.... risks are high they drive themselves into the ground ( anybody remember the funny article dave posted once abut the wife manipulating the mood of her husband ........ there was a lot of brill stuff in it.)

at the end of the day it is really what you make out of the use for power or not using power .
but if I have people that spend all day looking for gear and their power file I know they dont have the time and energy and concentration to work on whats really essential for performance..................

does the distance decide? It its more the character and strenght and weaknesses off an athlete , to be honest.
I think we defo get more useful feed back from an athelte that uses power meter in a race in an Ironman ( and I like them to be taped off with most people during the race or dont look at them to much ) vs olympic. but in training I would almost suggest that a powermeter for oly distance can be more useful as you could argue the training for oly distance is more " specific" and you work a bit more in the danger zone. and I feel at the high end stuff power can lead to improvement. I think that power meter for bike racing and drafting tri make more sense than for non drafting tri . as it is potentially more important too see peak power. 20 sec peak and etc graphs.

but again as coach Paulo sousa ( a scientist by trade ) once said nicely
using power or not is not a deciding factor for performance on the whole
and with this i totally agree with, but I also understand my limits on power and seek external help when I Feel it is important , as there is people who know way more about it than myself.

How in gods name did people train before it was invented?? somebody just told me .........
than saying that the i pod was the most important tool for him.

so different tools for different folks could be the answer ;-)

Zuppy · 04-05-2012 10:29pm

I just came to this thread and spent an hour reading all the back posts. So I need some time to mull over it. But on the original issue of the marathon getting slower (which I do believe myself), the sports scientist in me would ask how you are measuring this?

If it is based on the average times then the massive influx of recreational runners will off set the stats as I am sure the elite field has not expanded at the same rate.
And I believe that sports science is responsible for developing the marathon boom by researching what worked and didn't and making the answers widely available for everyone. I found it difficult back in the 1990's doing my first marathon while not being involved with any club finding out anything useful in regards to training. Now if I type marathon plan into google I can get millions of hits. Most of it due to research done in the intervening years.

If it is based on the elite Irish times in the Dublin marathon over the last 3 decades then you would have to ask did we have an exceptional talent in the country that could have been better, or worse, with science to help it? Or has the development of fresh talent failed?

Has modern living caught up on us or have we developed athletics structures in the wrong way? (Long term athlete development plan spent a decade getting it wrong and now it is time to start over with a new crop or in the case of AAI would having a LTAD plan be of use to develop new elite athletes?). The debate behind the science of the LTAD is a longer debate for another time.

I asked Ron Hill about this (slower elite times) a few years ago, about the fact they tried not to drink water (the marathon had only four water tables as per IAAF) and the athletes thought it would negativity affect them yet they still ran such good times. The group (involved in the discussion at the time) reckoned it was that the 'new' runners were 'soft'. What 'soft ' meant is anyones guess but I got the impression it was to do with attitude and the mental aspects of the discipline.

Sports science has not got all the answers (yet). This coupled with the individual nature of each athlete makes evaluation of this question harder, but in the 1990's the recreational runners like myself did maybe one marathon a year and spent ages limping post event. Now recreational runners (and a large number of them) are knocking out marathons every week/month, mainly (IMO) due to the knowledge of recovery techniques and technology. Science helping again.

Sports science has evaluated the (any) technique, weighted it up and given it's verdict (or verdicts in some cases). What works makes us faster, but the science is but one factor. Lack of talent ID or of availability of high quality food sources and the quality of facilities play a roll. So does the psychology of the individual athletes and the fancy garmins.

What the science has said about the future talent in studies like the HBSC 2006/2010 is that exercise levels in children have been static (between 2006-10), and IMHO not adequate enough. Not compared to the fact that average PE time in primary school is 51 (or 54, I can't remember which) minutes PER WEEK [Dept of Ed]. This can not be good for the fundamental movement skills development and if these skills don't develop then all the gadgets in the world won't make you an elite athlete. Need to walk before you run!

So I do believe [anecdotal evidence as referenced by zuppy et al] is that Sports Science is making us faster but a number of other factors are making us slower.

Zuppy · 04-05-2012 10:50pm

Oh and I forgot, in my first marathon I hit the wall, and today science has made me faster by using the likes of

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/10/marathon-math/
Or Marathon Math: how not to hit the wall!

A science joke,

Science has shown that 99.5% of criminals eat sliced pan, therefore sliced pan is responsible for crime.

peter kern · 07-05-2012 10:08pm

good stuff dave thanks .

Peter, I understand exactly the point you are trying to make. Unfortunately you picked a horrific example to back it up.

Retul is not a fitting system. Retul is a fitting tool. It is a fancy tape measure. You probably used a tape measure in your fitting.

In this case it was not your intuition versus science or a system but your intuition versus someone elses intuition. Given you expertise and knowledge and experience I am not surprised that your fit was vastly superior.

Dave I thought about this a bit and I cant really see how the
bike fit with client feed back versus a bike fitter, that just did what he thought was right . Is not an appropriate example in this case. I think its actually quite a good example.

its " I tell you what is good for you and what you need and what you do ie " vs , how does what we are doing actually work for you.
one is based on believing you can meassure whats right for somebody the other based on what does the athlete actually feel whats happening. ( the better the feed back I get the more the athlete is in control whats happening)
so both approaches are different "systems"
my intuition was certainly guiding the athlete but I do ask a lot of open questions and i ask them in a way that the client can not say yes or no. so I use them as my guide .
At the end of the day the work I work is result driven if there is no improvement than it is not good
I never showed this report from this athlete until I had the black and white 'prove' of significant improvement on the bike (ok we can argue was it coaching what was bike fitting but I have had only 1 athlete ever that have improved that much )

if its not making improvements its not good. And I am usually quite critical what is good ( maybe too critical)

As usual most likely the truth is its not black and white
but if somebody tells me that a reutil fit is better than a no retul fit (and many people would think so if you ask around ) than i disagree.
with that.
for triathlon i tihink its much more important that I see people run before I fit them, on a bike as I then have an idea how the bike fit can affect their running .

if you read the original question of the thread again I ask where science and gadgeds like powermeter can show proven results, a retul is one of those gadgets in my mind.
which like any gadged can be good , neutral or bad depending on the hands it is in.
but we cant say per say they are improvent for everybody

and again coaching is a mix of art and Science and it will Always be a mix of art and Science.

If I was to coach mountainbiker I can promise that most likely pretty much all my clients would be on power. as i want all those different meassure tapes.

As for team skype .
I dodnt now that much as I really stopped following cycling as pretty much every winner in last 20 year ( and most likely more) has had a positve test at some stage ( some only b sample )
but from what i know they promised a tour winner from the Uk within 5 years of starting the team , that goal has been changed into win with an international rider.
so what do you think they are doing so well ?( if you give me some ideas i will defo into it look into it .

As for your link ( sounds quite interesting thanks ) watched that movie and think there is also a lot of common sense in there .
funnily even my friend that studied statisics a math did not think thats how you could select a team. and of course baseball is a more controlled game than most But still it shows some real flaws about selection.

Dave said
"I think that the impact of sports science has been similarly restricted in Ireland. Resistance from those that do not understand it and therefore fear it and as such do not apply it"

that is certainly one point that can not be refuted , on the other hand there is coaches that claim that some nations dont perform because they are over scienced .

Id like you to give examples where you fee that is happening.

Overall, I have the feeling this tread has prob shown some other aspects that affect perforamnce.

and the question originally was where is there proof that sport science and gadgets get better Results than training without, and I still have not seen that many points.

Dave Ouote
However I feel that this thread has descended from a discussion on sports science to arguing about which will improve your IM time more - a PM or rubbing the purée of a squirrel's liver on your left ankle on the last night of equinox of the year.

please explain and then hopefully we can redirect that a bit. You say " sport science is a tool " ( and we essentially agree on this. we also agree that some tools work for some and not for others. and here we are discussing if those tools make us really faster and in which circumstances,
conclusions

and lastly there is a placebo effect which we cant deny in sport. I moral support is quite important if you look at soccer home and away statistics

peter kern · 08-05-2012 12:00am

So I do believe [anecdotal evidence as referenced by zuppy et al] is that Sports Science is making us faster but a number of other factors are making us slower.

thanks Zuppy I like the above summary!!!
thank you for your post!.

the article you link is not that great, in my mind , as vo2max is not that important for marathon racing given the fact that marathon world records have been run with a vo2 max of 68 and i think 83
so to use vo2max in isolation seems to me very poor science.

one question . is it experience or science that gets us further?
i mean each year an athlete learns a bit more about themselves.
and as a sport matures we all learn more so is it actually science that brings us forward or experience?

i mean acupuncture is something that I believe has been used for many centuries but only seems to start to hit the sport lately. so its hardly anything new.

the one thing I disagree is good facilities, that can be refuted with many arguments many facilities are important but a lot of succesfull places Iten , The australien tri team moved purposefully away from canberra in the 90s , a tenis accadamy in russia that at least a few years ago had more tennis player in the top 25 or so than the whole US .

A hig number of facilities helps me thinks, Like in australia where pretty much every vilaage over 1500 inahbitants seems to have an open air pool and that dostn dosnt hinder success but I would say rather spending big money in the NAC a cheap 50 m and 2 other cheap 25 meter pools in dublin would bring more people into the sport given the fact there is a shortage in pools in Ireland .

as for your school example there has to be some truth in it since in New zealand triathlon is a school sport ,,,, and paired with great talent idea they have gone quite far and could be called the best triathion nation per 1 milion inhabitants in the world.
on the other hand in germany most secondary schools have 180 min of school sport and marathon running still went slower . but i think its more the encouragement of teachers that try to point talented athletes in the right direction ( ie clubs ) and thats not really happening in germany.
and as for marathon times they are slower at elite level all over europe . but also times in ballycotton for the 10 miler have dropped and her one could say that there is not that much really new or unkown about 10 mile running since the 1980s ....

As for its being easier to get information I agree, totally at the same time the problem is that there is also so much nonsense being made public and the ordinary punter can not separate whats plain marketing and whats really useful.
And I think nowadays this is almost as big a problem as no information.

Zuppy · 08-05-2012 11:09am

Since you brought the Art of coaching into the discussion I have been wondering.....

The Artist versus the scientist. It had me thinking of which one is better and which one I was.

But the art of coaching is sport science. A major chunk of sports science deals with the psychological side of sport, the athlete and coach. I think it is one and the same when it comes to the coaching, it is easier to 'teach' someone to be a science or evidence based coach. The art develops over time and without a defined pathway.

When it comes to the gagets, they have to be making a difference to sport in general. The data collection alone from heart rate and distance watches will allow us to monitor causes in fatigue and injury retrospectively without relying on the subjective interpatition of athletes.

The gagets designed and used for the elite field have give the general population huge aids and not just in the medical field but in bike materials and design, rehab therapies etc.

Sports science has pushed some of the boundaries of nutrition. The calculations for post event feeding and the guideline for healthy eating for performance athlete to name a few. The research that was taken from runners in the states that used sun block and therefore were vitamin D deficient. Leading to one US marathoner to start supplementing Vit D post her leg break. Without the science the choice is weak bones and more injuries (slower times) or skin cancer.

If sports science and gagets are making us slower (not other factors) then I am sure sports science will research it and find out. :-)

Zuppy · 08-05-2012 11:17am

http://mobile.journals.lww.com/nsca-scj/_layouts/oaks.journals.mobile/abstractviewer.aspx?year=2004&issue=04000&article=00014

Just to muddy the waters in this debate. An article that calls the science into question. Is it exercise science or sports science (going faster, stronger longer).

peter kern · 08-05-2012 11:45am

good link and i guess one would really start to clean up what is science in sport.

The Artist versus the scientist. It had me thinking of which one is better

i think that depends on the athlete as much as anything.

the current irish national Coach and performance director in triathlon was a professional conductor in an orchestra before coaching ...... and me thinks thats a very good background for a performance director in sport. and this is the way he coaches he is an conductor as much as a coach
he is very good to see the big picture in my mind.

darren smith is a sport scientist by trade and that does shine trough as a coach he is very good with the detail.
Both are world class in what they do most people would argue.

i could give you examples where athletes will tell you one of the 2 has made them slower the other has made them faster and vice versa.

Zuppy · 08-05-2012 11:57am

Music is inspiration for sport too.

The 1000 hour or ten year rule for sports skills and getting to peak performance (although I have seen a study saying it takes 12 years to get to the Olympics) comes from music. Ericsson discussed music skills but it had relevancies to sport also. So I think a conductor running triathlon is sport going back to its roots.

So using your point, C Jones and D Smith are both using science. :-)

Ericsson, K. A., 1996, ‘The acquisition of expert performance: An introduction to some of the issues.’ In *The Road to Excellence: The Acquisition of Expert Performance in the Arts and Sciences, Sports, and Games*, K. A. Ericsson, ed. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 1-50.

d4r3n · 08-05-2012 12:27pm

Zuppy wrote: »

Music is inspiration for sport too.

The 1000 hour or ten year rule for sports skills and getting to peak performance (although I have seen a study saying it takes 12 years to get to the Olympics) comes from music. Ericsson discussed music skills but it had relevancies to sport also. So I think a conductor running triathlon is sport going back to its roots.

So using your point, C Jones and D Smith are both using science. :-)

Ericsson, K. A., 1996, ‘The acquisition of expert performance: An introduction to some of the issues.’ In *The Road to Excellence: The Acquisition of Expert Performance in the Arts and Sciences, Sports, and Games*, K. A. Ericsson, ed. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 1-50.

Ericsson seems to get slated by these guys for selling the 10,000 hour idea.

It's an interesting read, basically Ericsson is a psychologist not a physiologist, so for him to make a claim like that is a bit off the wall.

peter kern · 08-05-2012 2:13pm

its seems like this thread is starting to move into the right direction !
will read later.

But yes not such a great fan of the marketing of the 10000 hour rule,
pseudo science that is in my mind the way it is sold .

Zuppy · 08-05-2012 7:41pm

d4r3n wrote: »

Ericsson seems to get slated by these guys for selling the 10,000 hour idea.

It's an interesting read, basically Ericsson is a psychologist not a physiologist, so for him to make a claim like that is a bit off the wall.

Great read (your link) and while I used this study for it's music background (see conductor coaching

), I have to say that the fact the author is a psychologist has minimal bearing on the study. I don't particularly agree with the notion that training for a set amount of time will get ME to the Olympics there is some validity in Ericsson's claims. Despite the fact that I believe genetics plays a bigger role.

The Olympic review by Gibbons et al, (The path to excellence 2002) had a number of findings and is quoted in your link as well. I am cherry picking the findings but it backs some of Ericsson's theory.

816 Olympians participated in this study, between the years 1984-1998.

Most U.S. Olympians reported a 12- to 13-year period of training and development from introduction to their sport to making the Olympic team.
The general trend for the Olympic athletes was to gradually increase their training load over an extended period of time. The athletes reported a long, extensive period of training before reaching the top levels of their sport. On average, athletes in this study progressed from 200-300 training hours per year in the developmental stages to more than 1100 training hours per year at the Olympic level

So 12-13 years and it is in the ballpark of the 10,000 hours and it tally's with Ericsson's progression of training hours per year increasing as development progresses. It also has large enough numbers of participants not to be discounted.

And no I am not a believer in the 10000 hour rule but it doesn't mean it hasn't it's uses

Zuppy · 08-05-2012 8:22pm

peter kern wrote: »

the article you link is not that great, in my mind , as vo2max is not that important for marathon racing given the fact that marathon world records have been run with a vo2 max of 68 and i think 83
so to use vo2max in isolation seems to me very poor science.

Oh and I nearly let you get away with that.

(your right, that study was a crap example and your right about the VO2)

If I remember a study awhile back 'Joyner' I think, (I would google but am too lazy at the moment) they based the possible best marathon time on VO2 max and came out with a sub 2hr marathon. saying it was physiologically possible. But the main limiting factors (main marathon performance factors) other than VO2 max were running economy and muscle fatigue. Personally when you enter these distances I believe psychology plays a major role too.

I am sure we will find out what a large VO2 max can do when Lance does Kona.

PS: I found the study on the hard drive (note to self to sort it better). 'The Two-Hour Marathon: Who and When?' Joyner 2010.
Worth noting:
Elite marathon runners typically have VO2 max values ranging from ~70 ml/kg/min to ~85 ml/kg/min
can sustain running speeds that require 85-90% VO2 max for more than one hour, and these factors along with knowledge of the oxygen cost to run a given speed (running economy) provide a reasonable estimate of marathon pace.
Pollock showed that elite distance runners who focused on the marathon had lower VO2max values and better running economy that those who focused on shorter races. (Pollock ML, 1977)

peter kern · 09-05-2012 12:44am

I don't particularly agree with the notion that training for a set amount of time will get ME to the Olympics there is some validity in Ericsson's claims.

but let me ask you, is that still science if there is only some validity in his claims, that he tries to sell as the truth?

where does science start and where does it end.

peter kern · 09-05-2012 9:33am

I read the Joiner paper some while ago and based on that i made my prediction on lance on another thread here on boards that he has - right know- only 2 of 4 requirements to run a fast enough marathon to really matter this year in hawaii.
2013 could be a different story.
He also fails on another one right now and that is weight he is too bulky to run a fast marathon . and will overheat with so many muscles in his upper body.

Zuppy wrote: »

Oh and I nearly let you get away with that.
(your right, that study was a crap example and your right about the VO2)

If I remember a study awhile back 'Joyner' I think, (I would google but am too lazy at the moment) they based the possible best marathon time on VO2 max and came out with a sub 2hr marathon. saying it was physiologically possible. But the main limiting factors (main marathon performance factors) other than VO2 max were running economy and muscle fatigue. Personally when you enter these distances I believe psychology plays a major role too.

I am sure we will find out what a large VO2 max can do when Lance does Kona.

PS: I found the study on the hard drive (note to self to sort it better). 'The Two-Hour Marathon: Who and When?' Joyner 2010.
Worth noting:
Elite marathon runners typically have VO2 max values ranging from ~70 ml/kg/min to ~85 ml/kg/min
can sustain running speeds that require 85-90% VO2 max for more than one hour, and these factors along with knowledge of the oxygen cost to run a given speed (running economy) provide a reasonable estimate of marathon pace.
Pollock showed that elite distance runners who focused on the marathon had lower VO2max values and better running economy that those who focused on shorter races. (Pollock ML, 1977)

hf4z6sqo7vjngi · 09-05-2012 10:32am

peter kern wrote: »

He also fails on another one right now and that is weight he is too bulky to run a fast marathon . and will overheat with so many muscles in his upper body.

Very true

d4r3n · 09-05-2012 10:38am

peter kern wrote: »

I read the Joiner paper some while ago and based on that i made my prediction on lance on another thread here on boards that he has - right know- only 2 of 4 requirements to run a fast enough marathon to really matter this year in hawaii.
2013 could be a different story.
He also fails on another one right now and that is weight he is too bulky to run a fast marathon . and will overheat with so many muscles in his upper body.

Interesting article on Lance and Kona here around what he needs to do in his opinion, and I'd say he knows him quite well. I think he's too bulky too.

peter kern · 09-05-2012 11:14am

I read that article a month ago and I think he talks only about metabolics but forgets to mention that you most likely he cant built the run endurance and muscular strenght that quickly. I think the theory was sound but to short sighted

and we all agree that there is some truth in the 10000 hour rule and he is a bit away from that in running ;-) in swimming Iam sure he has done his 10 000 hours when young and it was ' easy' to get it back in 2 years but running for the marathon in an IM is a different kettle. I would suggest

ps by now even lance distances himself from the author.

peter kern · 09-05-2012 11:16am

anyway back to the thread how sci-ency is that ....

A few years ago, Mo Farah, one of Britain's greatest hopes for the Olympics, was struggling to even make finals on the world stage. But everything changed for him when he moved into a house in south-west London with a group of top Kenyan runners. "To see them just eat, sleep and train and nothing else was a big shock for me," he said in a recent interview. Farah was already the top British runner at the time, but the level of dedication he saw from the Kenyans was a revelation.

Zuppy · 11-05-2012 9:36am

I have one, does periodisation ([SIZE=-1]the process of structuring training into phases), come from the science or from the art side of coaching?

I know there is science behind it, but if the studies are positive why does reverse/ inverse periodisation work too? And if periodisation is better in any form than no periodisation, why are training models like crossfit so popular?
[/SIZE]

peter kern · 11-05-2012 11:06am

many ways lead to rome.......

All I know not too many top coaches use the 3 on 1 off week in triathlon that s used in most triathlon level 1 coaching courses.... so one could ask whats the science in teaching 3 on 1 off and 12 week blocks.....
( i am being told thats the system, that works best for beginner coaches its not the best but the safest if you dont know what you are doing )
i guess the science is that there needs to be some sort of train and recovery cycle.(over reach and adaption)

the scientist would, i guess, tend to argue it can be planned ahead.

the artist plans too but says rest weeks are taken when they need to happen not when they are planned.
I dont see periodisation structures as art or sciece , the art and science is to decide whats right for the athlete......what outcome is desired, the distance,what level the athlete is at.eg for an beginner Ironman reversed periodisation is hardly ever the best.

depending on limitations of the athlete different periodisations work. I guess thats why I love triathlon coaching so much, as you can have advanced runner that are beginner swimmer or adcanced swimmer that are beginner runner etc . It makes coaching way more interesting than for a single dicipline.

peter kern · 18-05-2012 12:57pm

http://talkingeducationandsport.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/sport-has-still-got-long-way-to-go-mr.html

I think what he is saying is that we need more private schools
given the fact that 7 % of private school pupils will form 50% of the UK Olympic team ;-) and 93 percent of state school pUPILS the other 50%

Zuppy · 18-05-2012 1:45pm

peter kern wrote: »

http://talkingeducationandsport.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/sport-has-still-got-long-way-to-go-mr.html

I think what he is saying is that we need more private schools
given the fact that 7 % of private school pupils will form 50% of the UK Olympic team ;-) and 93 percent of state school pUPILS the other 50%

I wonder what the stats show for Ireland? I presume we have done similar studies and countless reviews of previous Olympics so we should have some idea what works. The talent ID for triathlon must have based its criteria on some research. (not just the times but where and whom to target).

On the phone now so I will have a quick look later.

does sport science make us slower ???

Comments