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

Training to enhance the physiological determinants of long-distance running performance: can valid recommendations be given to runners and coaches based on current scientific knowledge? This article investigates whether there is currently sufficient scientific knowledge for scientists to be able to give valid training recommendations to long-distance runners and their coaches on how to most effectively enhance the maximal oxygen uptake, lactate threshold and running economy. Relatively few training studies involving trained distance runners have been conducted, and these studies have often included methodological factors that make interpretation of the findings difficult. For example, the basis of most of the studies was to include one or more specific bouts of training in addition to the runners' 'normal training', which was typically not described or only briefly described. The training status of the runners (e.g. off-season) during the study period was also typically not described. This inability to compare the runners' training before and during the training intervention period is probably the main factor that hinders the interpretation of previous training studies. Arguably, the second greatest limitation is that only a few of the studies included more than one experimental group. Consequently, there is no comparison to allow the evaluation of the relative efficacy of the particular training intervention. Other factors include not controlling the runners' training load during the study period, and employing small sample sizes that result in low statistical power. Much of the current knowledge relating to chronic adaptive responses to physical training has come from studies using sedentary individuals; however, directly applying this knowledge to formulate training recommendations for runners is unlikely to be valid. Therefore, it would be difficult to argue against the view that there is insufficient direct scientific evidence to formulate training recommendations based on the limited research. Although direct scientific evidence is limited, we believe that scientists can still formulate worthwhile training recommendations by integrating the information derived from training studies with other scientific knowledge. This knowledge includes the acute physiological responses in the various exercise domains, the structures and processes that limit the physiological determinants of long-distance running performance, and the adaptations associated with their enhancement. In the future, molecular biology may make an increasing contribution in identifying effective training methods, by identifying the genes that contribute to the variation in maximal oxygen uptake, the lactate threshold and running economy, as well as the biochemical and mechanical signals that induce these genes. Scientists should be cautious when giving training recommendations to runners and coaches based on the limited available scientific knowledge. This limited knowledge highlights that characterising the most effective training methods for long-distance runners is still a fruitful area for future research. Err, thanks.

"Experiment of one" works for me.

I think the article points out the merits of the scientific method: it can test its own limits. This is only a bad thing from the point of view of the demand for certainty. Science never gives us certainty, but it can define clearly the limits of its claims. Which is why it's the best method for producing knowledge.

And now we know why scientists of the early Enlightenment period were known as "Natural Philosophers." Well stated, my fellow Jeff.

Yeah. The emergence of a difference between science and philosophy is a fairly recent development. To my thinking, it's been detrimental to both fields.

"When the going gets strange, the weird turn pro."

Yes, indeed. A great American philosopher. RIP.

Amen brother. Amen.

"I returned to the Holiday Inn — where they have a swimming pool and air-conditioned rooms — to consider the paradox of a nation that has given so much to those who preach the glories of rugged individualism from the security of countless corporate sinecures, and so little to that diminishing band of yesterday's refugees who still practice it, day by day, in a tough, rootless and sometimes witless style that most of us have long since been weaned away from."

That's so HST. No one wrote like that, ever. The series of books he wrote during the 80's during the Reagan years were great.

I'd be interested in the full article if you have the citation.

Authors: Midgley, Adrian W.1; McNaughton, Lars R.1; Jones, Andrew M.2 Source: Sports Medicine, Volume 37, Number 10, 2007 , pp. 857-880(24) Publisher: Adis International

I'd be interested in the full article if you have the citation. THe problem is, the human race is not lab rats. We are not genetically identical and able to be manipulated from egg to grave. Rats sure, you can control their training and make sure everything is controlled their entire life. Humans, you have no control over genetics, can only control very small proportions of the training and variables, and are extremely limited i nthe kinds of tests that you can run. I doubt science will haev any meaningful impact on our training in the near future. I say this as a scientist (molecular and cellular biologist more specifically). There is this crackpot that circulates running boards (not this one yet, thank God) claiming to have made all sort of huge revolutionary breakthroughs. Yet, when backed against a wall, he cannot point out how any of it (even if he was right or even competent to interpret the studies he attempts to read) would change current training. We know what levers work, from there every individual just needs to find which combinations of levers are optimal for them.

Ahh, yes, and we all know the crackpot, no? He was the first person who sprang to mind, with his Mickey Mouse interpretations (and often intellectually dishonest) of clearly deficient studies. What Raoul Duke would have done to him . . .