Long summer

It's been quite a while since I posted something on this blog. Unfortunately it is not because nothing happened. Quite to the contrary, I had a very eventful and exciting summer. I think I simply needed a break and some time away from blogging. Call it a long vacation.

Here is what happened since the end of June and Nationals in Bend. We had our house broken into while we were away and computers stolen, but overall the damage was pretty limited. Some bike stuff was stolen too, don't ask me why. Maybe because it was easy to grab and looked expensive? In any case, the damage was limited and from the looks of it, it appears the thieves were in here for less than 10 minutes. Most of the damage was to the front entryway where they made a mess prying open the door.

Over the summer I coached a group of 18 riders who are raising funds for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF). I organized several rides in different locations and rode with beginners, intermediates and advanced riders, most of whom were getting ready to ride 72 miles around Tahoe in September. The JDRF ride was part of a larger ride, known as Tour de Tahoe or Big Blue. Not all riders went there and there were others who will ride the Death Valley and Tucson rides later in the year. The Tucson ride is part of the El Tour de Tucson.

In August, I went to Belgium with Alistair and a fellow junior Kyle Torres. We had a great time and did lots of sightseeing, lots of riding and (the kids) lots of racing. For the first time I drove a team car in a large caravan of follow vehicles. It was a very exciting experience that I won't soon forget.

Alistair and Kyle with Team Rosen Meents

Overall the trip was a huge success and it motivated me to try and do it again next year. I think I can offer coaching and trips to Belgium for junior riders of all ages (nieuwelingen: 15-16, juniores: 17-18, and beloften (U23). I am working with some folks in Belgium to get things ready for next summer so if you are interested stay tuned. Hopefully we can offer something special that makes a difference to folks.

Since we got back from Belgium at the end of August I have been taking it easy. I completed the Tahoe ride on September 12, adding an extra 8 miles looping back and forth to make sure people were OK. Overall it was great fun but I think Tahoe would be so much better without all the traffic and the aggressive driving. It is a beautiful place for sure, but much of that beauty is now gone, covered in concrete and hugely oversized mac-mansions.

Coaching clinic

Today I am in Davis for a level 2 coaching clinic. The event lasts through Sunday noon. Two full days of lectures plus one morning. It is pretty intense. Overall I was pleasantly surprised with the quality. The level is quite basic -esp. the physiology parts- but the scientific rigor is good and that is reassuring. It is not so much that I am learning new stuff here, but reviewing everything from a training/coaching perspective is good to do. And it is good to hear that people take all the training hype with a decent grain of salt.

I will use this event to insert a break in my training. I plan to take two days off and then maybe I will do something light on Sunday. That will be a nice change now that the season is over. So far this week, I have run 7.5 on Monday, and another 8.75 on Wednesday. I also did two rides, 30 on Tuesday and 35 on Thursday. Together with a light workout on Sunday, it will make for a good recovery week.

Misunderstanding science

I just received a publication for coaches with an article on "how to read a research paper." Although well-intentioned and containing some good points, the article also shows how little people know about science and how distorted their understanding really is. I have often remarked that even practicing scientists -or I should say card-carrying scientists, if that is what one can call PhD's- promote ideas that are very unscientific indeed. Their track record is often as poor as that of the general public.

There are erroneous statements throughout the article I mentioned, but here is the creme de la creme. First, about "proving," the author states, "science does not really "prove" anything: what science does is to find the truth." As I have remarked many times before, equating science with truth is pervasive in Western societies and it is wrong. What science really does is build models and prove that those models are internally consistent and work to approximate the truth within certain boundaries. 

Newtonian mechanics is a model that works very well under normal circumstances of every day life. Within those boundaries, it approximates the "truth" to within several decimal places. It no longer functions adequately when speeds are approximating the speed of light. Similarly, the Ptolemian model -with the earth in the center- is useful for everyday navigation on the high seas and for those who find themselves with dead batteries in the GPS. It is sorely inadequate for space applications.

Another great example is the "body of evidence" argument. Here the author basically argues that a single study should never be used to overturn a body of evidence, meaning -in this case- a number of previous studies. This idea, that science is about democratically voting what is right and what is wrong, is also very pervasive. It is very wrong too. Even a single observation can invalidate centuries of consensus. Science is not democratic in that sense.

While it is true that practitioners in a scientific discipline hold a consensus -what Kuhn called a paradigm- and even interpret new findings within that context, that does not mean that such a consensus is in any way "scientific." As a matter of fact, many historians of science have shown that precisely such a consensus often prevents new breakthroughs ("revolutions") from happening sooner. The consensus is a modus operandi of the community, but it is not part of the scientific method. 

The third kicker is the assumption that publication in "peer reviewed journals" means something is scientifically proven. This too is deeply ingrained. It is one area where the scientific community is highly complicit and insincere. This loathsome behavior is endorsed financially as well and scientists are often awarded jobs and promotions based on the number of peer-reviewed publications they have. Unfortunately, the average peer-reviewed publication is no better and no more valuable than the average subprime mortgage.

Nothing should be called scientifically proven until it has been duplicated by at least one independent outsider. No amount of peer-review can substitute for a single, well executed experimental confirmation by another researcher.

There are many more problems with the article, but I will limit my review to just one more, very common misunderstanding. This one has to do with statistics. Once again the author can be forgiven because the vast majority of "card-carrying" scientists do not understand statistics either. It is probably fair to say that statistics is misused in about 3/4 of the peer reviewed papers. The numbers are even higher in biology, medicine, and related disciplines.

The argument made here is about statistical significance and it shows how easily people can be misled. The author argues that sometimes, an improvement of 1% can make the difference between a gold medal and no medal. He shows that in some disciplines, less than 1% separates the fourth placed athlete from the winner. No problem here.

However, then he goes on to equate that 1% difference with a 1% difference between experimental and control groups in a study. In such cases, 1% may not be enough to reach significance. What that means is the 1% is very likely due to chance. I.e. there is no difference. That is not how the article reads. It claims the 1% is real but somehow ignored because researchers think it is too small to matter.

He says:"In the real world of coaching, one has to look beyond the issue of chance and look at the actual effect. For instance, if an intervention can increase performance by 1%, it might be statistically unimportant. However, in real life a 1% increase could mean victory."

How is that for mixing apples and oranges? And believe me, it is an argument I have seen in many times in many places. If the 1% is real then surely it will matter in some circumstances. The problem here is that the study where the 1% difference occurred is not powered to show that that 1% is for real. The 1% is likely a fluke. What we need in such cases is not "expert judgement" to resolve an issue. In this case, there is no information to base an opinion on.

What we need is another study. Our current study simply does not have the information we seek. 

The lure of recipes

People love recipes. Detailed, step by step recipes. Recipes to cook, to lose weight, to gain muscle mass, to get faster, to get more endurance, you name it. Recipes and lists of recipes. The seven habits of successful people, 10 things that will make you run faster, swim faster. These are the headlines that sell books, magazines, CD's and the like.

The ostensible reason is to save time. It is said that modern humans have precious little time. They are busy creatures, too busy really. Busy working their jobs or raising their families. Too busy to take time out and learn something new. Unless it is fed to them in bite-size, ready-to-consume pieces. Preferably illustrated with pictures, photographs, and diagrams. Not too much reading material because we don't have time for all that. Can't slow down now. Yup, there goes my cellphone! Got to take this call!

Lazy is perhaps a better word. Not one we like to hear but probably one that is closer to reality. Too lazy to read, we need a shortcut. Someone who read it for us and now feeds it to us step by step. Too lazy to try something new. God forbid that we would waste our time on something and not get results. Too lazy for hard work and always looking for a shortcut. A secret formula. A magic potion.

We are eager to believe that those who make it have some secret sauce. They know something we don't. There must be some ritual, some incantation, some drug, some gadget that these guys know about that I don't. Maybe it is the power meter?

Coaches often take advantage of these trends. They shroud themselves in secrecy. They adopt ritualistic routines. They force athletes to do bizarre drills. Much like doctors who prescribe special diets for some people. The magic of placebo is not to be underestimated. Drink 10 glasses of water a day. Eat five servings of fruit. Do this seven times, not six, not eight, seven! You got to do it right otherwise the magic won't work!

Today's workout: a 3,000 m swim. All freestyle, non-stop.