does sport science make us slower ???

tunney

peter kern wrote: »

and too much science can dilutes the focus on perfomance sometimes ;-)

the argue here is and will always be is that most people spend so much time thinking about gear that they dont have time to focus on getting fast.

Darren smith once said coaching is 2 % science
and he has now 6 olympians in London
now those 2 or 10 or whatever % are extremely important
but they are not the core.

agree with everything here.

However does the 2% sports science that Darren applies to his athletes make them slower?

peter kern

longshank wrote: »

"want to be an olympic champion choose your parents carefully" .....everything else, science, technology, socio-economic background etc etc is marginal...if you got a 1 litre engine there is only so much tuning up you can do..sports science has proven it!!!!

the talent has still to be found an nurtured
and thats not quite proven dont forget a male marathon world record has been set with an vo2 of 68 ;-)

peter kern

bryangiggsy wrote: »

You got a female athlete cult thing going on?

Hail Peter Kern

I work with a club where the guys talk gear and the females understand that if they get fit they get faster.

mloc123

peter kern wrote: »

I work with a club where the guys talk gear and the females understand that if they get fit they get faster.

You have a lot of success with female athletes and less with male athletes?

Have you considered they fact that tri is male dominated and that perhaps the overall strength and depth of the female field is weak in comparison?

peter kern

tunney wrote: »

agree with everything here.

However does the 2% sports science that Darren applies to his athletes make them slower?

he is using way more than 2 % but the focus is on the fact that its no
prime factor.
and when people like you say you cant get faster without a power meter
i just disagree ;-)
and of course sports science makes faster and its incredibly important.

peter kern

mloc123 wrote: »

You have a lot of success with female athletes and less with male athletes?

Have you considered they fact that tri is male dominated and that perhaps the overall strength and depth of the female field is weak in comparison?

well we had for long time male Irish record holder
I coached the current Olympic Nat champ
the current male duathlon champ .....
I am not aware that any coach in ireland has more male success.

and of course I totally understand your 2nd part.......but its everybodies chance not just mine.

tunney

peter kern wrote: »

he is using way more than 2 % but the focus is on the fact that its no
prime factor.
and when people like you say you cant get faster without a power meter
i just disagree ;-)
and of course sports science makes faster and its incredibly important.

Close the thread the original question has been answered.

Does sport science make us slower??

According to Peter the answer is "No it makes you faster."

BTH

peter kern wrote: »

well we had for long time male Irish record holder
I coached the current Olympic Nat champ
the current male duathlon champ .....

Do they have power meters??

peter kern

BetterThanHoyte wrote: »

Do they have power meters??

not when they achieved ;-)

I recommend one to Mark Nolan 2 years ago and this winter he got 1. I dodnt coach him anymore
and while his swimming and running keeps is improving I cant see an improvement on the bike this year.
Also the current oly nat champ got one this winter
I also saw no power meter on shane scullies bike ( i could be wrong )

peter kern

tunney wrote: »

Close the thread the original question has been answered.

Does sport science make us slower??

According to Peter the answer is "No it makes you faster."

but here is the fact Irish marathon runners are still slower....
so the question is do they maybe focus to much on 2 10 r 20 % and not enough on what really matters.

and sport science is not the most important factor of performance
is what I argue ;-) so if yu focus to much on it it defo can make slower .

tunney

Just stumbled upon this.
Whats that say on his cranks?

peter kern

I see a cyclist ....... anyway keep focusing on your 5 10 or 20 %

and blame a wetsuit for a poor swim.

tunney

peter kern wrote: »

I see a cyclist ....... anyway keep focusing on your 5 10 or 20 %

and blame a wetsuit for a poor swim.

LOL - I don't blame my wetsuit. I do blame myself. Cannot swim 2km a fortnight and expect shoulders to stand strong

peter kern

anyway
its about time somebody opens a thread how sport science can make us faster if the real important stuff is done right.

bryangiggsy

peter kern wrote: »

I am not aware that any coach in ireland has more male success.

QUOTE]


I am not aware of many coaches in Ireland. I only know of a handful including yourself? Do most triathletes who go down the coaching route go outside of Ireland?

peter kern

I read lately there is more than hundred Tri coaches in Ireland.
Apart from chris jones I would not be aware of an coach from outside Ireland that has more Male Irish titles in the last 4 years than Pb3.

tunney

peter kern wrote: »

I read lately there is more than hundred Tri coaches in Ireland.
Apart from chris jones I would not be aware of an coach from outside Ireland that has more Male Irish titles in the last 4 years than Pb3.

TI L1 and L2 coaches cannot do one on one coaching, officially.

There is no TI L3 syllsbus so unless someone is BTF, or German Federation, trained....

jailhouse_dave

Interesting Thread, just stumble upon it. OP, who do you refer to by "us"? Triathletes, Long Distance Runners or Humans in General?

peter kern

this

mloc123

peter kern wrote: »

this

Peter, is using a PC to access the internet considered sports science?
How do you send your training plans to your non science athletes?

peter kern

mloc123 wrote: »

Peter, is using a PC to access the internet considered sports science?
How do you send your training plans to your non science athletes?

do you really not get it ????

longshank

peter kern wrote: »

the talent has still to be found an nurtured
and thats not quite proven dont forget a male marathon world record has been set with an vo2 of 68 ;-)

who runs a marathon at their VO2 Max?

mloc123

peter kern wrote: »

mloc123 wrote: »

Peter, is using a PC to access the internet considered sports science?
How do you send your training plans to your non science athletes?

do you really not get it ????

It seems not.

tunney

peter kern wrote: »

do you really not get it ????

It is you who does not get it. You equate science with technology.

You asked why doesn't someone start a thread about how sports science makes us faster. Why? Because its blindingly, painfully obvious.

Sports nutrition - you could just much bananas and drink water but sports science has shown the absorption rates from sugars (think old school gels) are much better. Then it went further and proved that absorption rates from a combination of types of sugars in a specific ration is even better (think 2:1 based gels and drinks).

Hydration and electrolytes - look at Kona, how much research into sweat rates and the specific ratios of salts on a per athlete basis is done - Macca for one example.

Swimming - speeds suits.

The list really is endless of things sports science has proven to work is endless. Alot of what you now consider common sense you only know of because at some stage it was "sports science" but is now accepted thinking.

Jesus Christ aircraft manufacturers are now looking to how Carbon Fibre time trial bikes are made to improve their manufacturing processes.

Yes some people do have an over reliance on gadgets. However sports science is not defined as "the study of gadgets and the discussion of said gadgets".
Try this definition "Sport Science is a discipline that studies the application of scientific principles and techniques with the aim of improving sporting performance. .................

The study of Sport Science traditionally incorporates areas of physiology, psychology, motor control and biomechanics but also includes other topics such as nutrition and diet, sports technology, anthropometry, kinanthropometry, and performance analysis."

its not just bloody gadgets Peter.

Hanley

Exceptional post.

peter kern

tunney wrote: »

It is you who does not get it. You equate science with technology.

You asked why doesn't someone start a thread about how sports science makes us faster. Why? Because its blindingly, painfully obvious.

Sports nutrition - you could just much bananas and drink water but sports science has shown the absorption rates from sugars (think old school gels) are much better. Then it went further and proved that absorption rates from a combination of types of sugars in a specific ration is even better (think 2:1 based gels and drinks).

Hydration and electrolytes - look at Kona, how much research into sweat rates and the specific ratios of salts on a per athlete basis is done - Macca for one example.

Swimming - speeds suits.

The list really is endless of things sports science has proven to work is endless. Alot of what you now consider common sense you only know of because at some stage it was "sports science" but is now accepted thinking.

Jesus Christ aircraft manufacturers are now looking to how Carbon Fibre time trial bikes are made to improve their manufacturing processes.

Yes some people do have an over reliance on gadgets. However sports science is not defined as "the study of gadgets and the discussion of said gadgets".
Try this definition "Sport Science is a discipline that studies the application of scientific principles and techniques with the aim of improving sporting performance. .................

The study of Sport Science traditionally incorporates areas of physiology, psychology, motor control and biomechanics but also includes other topics such as nutrition and diet, sports technology, anthropometry, kinanthropometry, and performance analysis."

its not just bloody gadgets Peter.

all totally true what you say
but bottom line is you are still way slower than 2 years ago with all this knowledge ;-)
Jesus Christ aircraft manufacturers are now looking to how Carbon Fibre time trial bikes are made to improve their manufacturing processes.
is thats why airbus seems to have to pay milions for aircraft that dosnt work ;-)
you think about the icing of the cake without having a cake so to speak.

Huff n Puff

peter kern wrote: »

not when they achieved ;-)

I recommend one to Mark Nolan 2 years ago and this winter he got 1. I dodnt coach him anymore
and while his swimming and running keeps is improving I cant see an improvement on the bike this year.
Also the current oly nat champ got one this winter
I also saw no power meter on shane scullies bike ( i could be wrong )

You are right there Peter. I don't use any gadgets at all on the bike, not even a speedometer. I don't use anything in the run (a watch if doing intervals) or swim either.

I can definitely see the value in using gadgets though but it is just my personal preference to train and race by feel. I would hate to have a watch telling me how fast I should or should not be going in a race. For me its a case of as hard as you can for as long as you can without going into the red.

I wouldn't be the poster boy for an anti sports science campaign though as there is no doubting the many benefits sports science has brought to many sports (triathlon included). I think you know yourself that it has brought benefits but you are just trying to spark a debate and alert people to the fact that it's not all about the latest gadgets. That is certainly a good point to make.

tunney

peter kern wrote: »

all totally true what you say
but bottom line is you are still way slower than 2 years ago with all this knowledge ;-)
Jesus Christ aircraft manufacturers are now looking to how Carbon Fibre time trial bikes are made to improve their manufacturing processes.
is thats why airbus seems to have to pay milions for aircraft that dosnt work ;-)
you think about the icing of the cake without having a cake so to speak.

Yes it is sports science that has made me slower over the last two years.

I read this research paper that said drinking lots and lots of wine and eat lots and lots of crap was a valid substitute for training. I followed the protocol for consuming wine and Haribo religiously for two years. It *just* hasn't made me any faster. Bloody sports science.

peter kern wrote: »

you think about the icing of the cake without having a cake so to speak.

Thats cause I fvcking ate it!
They don't call me "Dave Tummy" for nothing!

peter kern

tunney wrote: »

agree with everything here.

However does the 2% sports science that Darren applies to his athletes make them slower?

Comming back to the icing of the cake without having the cake

in this post you agree with darren smith that science is 2 %

so what are your other 98 % dave ?

peter kern

mloc123 wrote: »

It seems not.

nobody does aruge that science makes slower what makes slower is to focus too much on other stuff than actually to train