The truth is that we live in a world that has walls. I guess he can’t handle that. 
As this has become the de facto #sciencefacts thread
very interesting and the “quotes” and comments lead down a few ideas also (notwithstanding poor data).
https://x.com/AnastasiosMakr4/status/1724711830143025562?s=20
1 Like
of course they can’t see a break point…the steps are too great…certainly for this participant…
1 Like
2 mins per step seems short compared to what I read those in elite endurance sports do. Agree with you that 50W is too big a increment.
1 Like
That was one of my issues with the data, isnt 20 watts best? And the data doesnt show the initial drop in lactate once you start moving, wonder if they warmed up properly etc.
Interesting that theres comments on/by biochemists. I know one who has commented before that physiology / sports science is too broad to really develop understanding but I never really listened as it sounded like “science elitism” or arrogance , and surely that would be down to the individuals own reflection and learning
1 Like
20 W is convenient and certainly for a novice cyclist it would be too far…but test strips cost money and it soon ramps up - no pun intended.
3 mins is the industry standard to allow time for the HR to settle…
To develop a deep understanding, yes.
But, to be controversial, I think that we could do without a lot of the ‘sports science’ (with certain caveats)
1 Like
AC does 6mins, 5mins at the power and a minute to allow for the test and a retest if there’s an issue with the sample. I’m thinking that could be flawed around VO2 max but maybe that’s the point?
a minute static?
No not static , just continuing to ride. So its 6mins at each level but he tests on 5 in case he needs to do a second test.
You get about 30 secs to retest anyway…
1 Like
Pretty sure Inigo San Millan uses 5 min steps, if not longer as he feels you don’t get a levelling off of lactate at 2 mins so that you’re in effect recording a lower lactate level than the effort will produce if you stayed there longer.
Wish we did lactate when doing Ex. Phys. at uni. We did VO2 max, O2 consumption for RQ and lots of ‘playing’ with Polar HRMs.
1 Like
I think good Sports Science should help explain why a training stimulus produces the adaptations it does, in terms of mechanisms, etc. It then helps explain why good coaches get good results. Rather than what sometimes seems to happen over the last decade or two where people base their training on scientific findings. I mean there is so much noise about the ‘Norwegian method’ but no one was raving about the ‘Leeds method’ a decade ago.
4 Likes
Hey, I tried a diet of Tetley and Ginsters. Everyone thought I was mad.
3 Likes
Maybe one for the PED thread 
3 Likes
Guided by science, not led by science
1 Like
Coaching has been led by medical science since the 1920s…
2 Likes
Love that people thinks it means something, and something positive.
You are the expert, youve tried every fad going to try to improve 
2 Likes
#Tailwind
3 Likes
2 Likes