. . . and now a study that says studies are generally useless, except that more studies would be good (Read 842 times)

Your whole post was very nice, Spaniel. I would only point out that current training methods have been established by the scientific method, broadly construed. What we know about training comes out of the wisdom accumulated by at least three generations of athletes and coaches experimenting daily with their training and adjusting to the results of those experiments. We've come to associate 'science' with exactly the sort of molecular and chemical lab work that you do, but in my opinion the scientific method is not limited to quantitative methods and laboratory apparatuses. So, I would revise the above line to say that "I doubt laboratory science will have any meaningful impact on our training in the near future." I think the main reason that it will have little impact is that the experimental controls that are imaginable by the laboratory scientist in his lab are very different from the factors that the athlete experiences in his training. Which is why coaches might not be the best physiologists, but they are still the experts in the field of training. They are scientists in a different sort of laboratory.

A little broadly construed, but yes, I would agree that it has been somewhat scientific. What it has lacked is any kind of real controlled testing of many of the important questions. What I must highlight, however, is that said crackpot likes to quote studies that are equally uncontrolled -- it is nearly impossible to have a truly controlled experiment in exercise physiology using human subjects. This is one case where I'll take the "institutional knowledge" gleaned form decades on the road and track over so-called science in the labs any day. At least the track uses the only model that really counts -- the fully human runner.