Helsinki Biomech Project

Expert Discussion Biomechanics and Physiology
21

How would I know if my theory was true at the time??? The results are already there, along with the method. The results are recorded right away- not 25 yrs later (though it seems that way at some of the meets around here!)
The why in your example is speculation by me that must be left to scientists to look into.
My objection here is that scientists have a tendency to reject things that are observed to work because proof is absent at the time.
I think the way to look at it is to accept that something is working and try to figure out how that might be. ATP was used with race horses and dogs with observed success before and human athletes tried it, which rules out the placebo effect from the outset.
Maybe what you’re saying is that the scientific method is primarily measurement tools. That’s reasonable enough. Of course that tells us what’s going on right away.
My interpretation of the scientific method is the proof of the theory itself, which might take years to validate. This is also important for those who follow but less so for those who find something that works and would like to share it.
If my interpretation of the scientific method is a marketing tool for the site, I don’t need to wait 25 yrs to know that you’re here for free to debate it.

As for target times, they are a combination of previous annual progressions and current annual progress (less steep than prev yrs) and current athlete readiness. For example, if an athlete is scheduled for a particular SE session and the situation suggests that improvement is not in the cards, the session is postponed and a replacement workout is substituted, usually sub-maximal. Now readiness can be measured to a point by Omega Wave etc, BUT if you’re working at the world record levels, the data base upon which norms are based will not always apply. likewise the final taper data of the OW cannot set the conditions for the ultimate race but it CAN regularize the conditions noted on the machine when everything was right based on results. (I hope what I’m trying to say about this makes sense)

22

I think this guy is trying to wind us up but incase he is for real I suggest reading some Epistemology and philosophy of science starting with Basteson’s ‘Science Never Proves Anything’. Then he can debate his ideas with some of the greatest thinkers of our time

TC710 Maybe you should provide your view on epistemology and the philosophy of science rather then telling me to refer some secondary texts. Could you present your view?

Epistemology defines knowledge according to
: a priori and a posteriori knowledge. Science holds the postion of posteriori knowledge or that knowledge is attained through external experience. Scientists are known to be empiricist , such as myself whereas you could say that Charlie is much be more a rationalist thinker in that his conclusions dont necessary need to be based from experience.

This is a philosphical divide between rationalists thinkers Hume, kant, Descarte and empricist such as Locke , Hobbes and even far back as Aristotle.

Philosophically science does have its dogmas since we are limited to what we can experience and if our experiences are subjective, then we have a objective measurement of subjectivity. Which is a self-refuteing and contradictory.

However i do think the scientific method offers the best alternative to arriving at truths about the world.

I am not really interested in reading Basteson’s ‘Science Never Proves Anything’ since rationalists are quite boring to read as are empiricist. I personally enjoy European existential thinkers such as Hiedegger , Satre ,Emmanuel Levinas, Husserl. The claims that existential phenomenology make can never be proved hence its downward fall during the past three decades however it doesn’t take away from the intellectual brilliance of such thinkers.

23

How would I know if my theory was true at the time??? The results are already there, along with the method. The results are recorded right away- not 25 yrs later (though it seems that way at some of the meets around here!)
The why in your example is speculation by me that must be left to scientists to look into.
My objection here is that scientists have a tendency to reject things that are observed to work because proof is absent at the time.

I would say those scientists who reject your ideas based on a absence of proof is a decision motivated by their ego rather then science. Usually the response to a theory that has failed to be studied is that it requires further investigation before conclusions can be drawn.

I had a discussion with a very well respected biomechanist last year on a similar topic. I said to him that John Smith teaches most of his sprinters to use their arms yet Manns researched this with collegiate athletes and he found no difference, he said to me that doesn’t necessary mean that arm drive doesn’t make a difference with the sprinters but rather the research failed to identify a difference.

The point I am making is- just because there is an absence of proof doesn’t necessary mean the idea is not true. That’s what I like about science is that it gives the opportunity to prove a theory. I can understand when you say you don’t have 25 years to wait around to have something proven when you have a meet next week. Yet the discovery of truth can some times be a process that ignores the practical needs of coaches and athletes. In life or what you call the “real world” some times we have to be rational and practical and go with what works.

From everything I have read from your posts over the last three years I do come to the conclusion that you are scientific in your thinking. Your methods are based on what works - this entails the measurement of performance. This is usually the first step in science anecdotal experiences. What sciences does is a further investigation of this phenomena. I think when scientists dismiss anecdotal experiences without investigated the phenomena itself then they themselves have deviated away from the science.

Its ironic that I am having this discussion with you, when it was last week that my coach sent you the program that I am following at the moment.

I have no problems with being wrong since it is then I am open to possibility of learning. From experience I have found scientists afraid to being wrong - this is a psychological bias that can impede the discovery of truth.

It is a uncomfortable proposition - if scientists cannot discovery truth- then whereas can we look to? If we stick to the paradigm of what works- then it opens up questions such as what is it that makes things work?

24

We seem to be in agreement! It is also amazing that the example of Ralph Mann vs John Smith could have developed, as, before he was a biomechanics Prof, Mann was the World Recorf holder in the 440y hurdles.

25

What makes someone a scientific? Diploma or way of thinking?

What is a difference between a scientific training and a non-scientific training?

This is not true, these equipements were not designed for coaches, coaches choosed them for their own needs on their every day life practice. Even synthetic tracks were designed for horses races before the length of the race made the product too expensive. Which scientific tools were specifically designed for sprint coaches and athletes?
The relationships between scientists and coaches in former Eastern Block was not as effective as the legend says, sometimes the scientists recomendations weren’t followed by the coaches who prefered to rely on their experience and FEELING when their athletes reached virgin land in performance area…

26

What makes someone a scientific? Diploma or way of thinking?

I don’t think I can provide you with a definitive absolute correct answer. If someone is scientific in their approach they are fundamentally guided by factual analysis. They measure quantify and evaluate what they do. For example in the weight room intensity should be set according percentage of 1RM.

Earlier this year in February I was watching Matt Shirvington (10.03 pb at 19) do power cleans I asked him what percentage is he was working at he said that he doesn’t work of percentages, its determined by how fast he can move the given weight ( his coach calls it speed weights). The next day he had starts up to 80m off the gun. And the day after that he had max 120m runs. That’s three days in a row with intensity of 95-100% but because the intensity wasn’t quantified then the only guide he had was how he felt.

Neuromuscular fatigue in its early stages cannot be assessed by how the athlete feels. Most JAP studies on 7 consecutive days on of 1RMax on the squat shows a drop in strength up to 8 weeks following this overtraining protocol. Given that Matt was in a state of neuromuscular fatigue in February it was no surprise to me that he ran 10.6 at the British Champs and at the world champs he was replaced from the relay after running very poorly in the heats. Research shows neuromuscular fatigue can cause drops in performance for 8 weeks following 1 week of overtraining. We can only speculate what the long term effects from several weeks of overtraining are.

This is clear example when training intensity is not measured, quantified and evaluated. Performance can deteriorate significantly for proceeding months. It may not be suffice to answer your question however it may shed some light on the issue.

What is a difference between a scientific training and a non-scientific training?

I 'll give a example of two coaches that train at the same track as if do. Lets name them coach A) and B)

Coach (A) doesn’t time his/her athletes over the given distance, nor calculate recovery time between repetition, overall volume and intensity is not monitored. Recovery time between intervals is based upon how the athlete feels and feedback is purely qualitative. No emphasis is made on post training nutrition or supplementation. No testing is done.

Coach (B) times her/his athletes; the recovery is set and determined by previous weeks training. Volume and intensity is periodised to elicit adaptation. Testing is performed in a systematic fashion to evaluate training gains. Training intensity is measure therefore overload can be applied and unloading cycle can be used if symptoms of mal- adaptation are shown.

Coach B is more scientific in their approach then coach A. It’s a relative term though

Which scientific tools were specifically designed for sprint coaches and athletes?

Their are some topics that we cannot talk about on here. Lets leave it at that

27

Surely that last statement is a typo! No?

28

yes it is a, coach B is more scientific in their approach then A

29

Sharmer: Coach A is not a coach, any fool on the street can do that! Fortunately i know very few coaches acting like this.

What will the Biomechanical Project give to us? Speed/stride rate for all Semi Finalists and Finalists. We already know what is the rythm pattern for elite sprinters. And of course, much more important is the problem of accurate measurement, which has been dramatic in Athens’97 project.
It would be more interesting to have now accurate body weight for athletes, data on starting block pressures, contact times, data on forces applied on the track, body limbs positions, all this at various points of the race, with corelation stats, medical exams and muscle strength researches on voluntair sprinters, etc… Spanish Fed invites after each major Champs some of the winners’ coaches for seminars, this is great action!